Thursday 23 January 1992

Waste Management Act, 1991, Bill 143 / Loi de 1991 sur la gestion des déchets, projet de loi 143

Notre Development Corp

Gordon McGuinty, president

Work on Waste USA

Paul Connett, national coordinator

Regional Municipality of York

Eldred King, chair

Ian Blue, legal counsel

Bob Forhan, chief administrative officer

City of Vaughan

Lorna Jackson, mayor

Thomas Lederer, legal counsel

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

Alan Tonks, chairman

Joan King, councillor

Bob Ferguson, commissioner of works

Jim Anderson, legal counsel


Chair / Présidente: Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Sola, John (Mississauga East/-Est L)

Cousens, W. Donald (Markham PC)

Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)

Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND)

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex ND)

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York ND)

Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC)

Sullivan, Barbara (Halton Centre L)

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)

Substitution(s) / Membre(s) remplaçant(s):

Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC) for Mr Stockwell

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND) for Mr Hope

McClelland, Carman (Brampton North/-Nord L) for Mrs Sullivan

Clerk / Greffière: Mellor, Lynn

Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1003 in room 151.


Resuming consideration of Bill 143, An Act respecting the Management of Waste in the Greater Toronto Area and to amend the Environmental Protection Act / Projet de loi 143, Loi concernant la gestion des déchets dans la région du grand Toronto et modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.


The Chair: Good morning. The standing committee on social development is now is session. We are examining Bill 143, Waste Management Act, 1991. I see a quorum and I would like to call the first presenter, Notre Development Corp. You have one hour for your presentation and the committee has asked if you would leave as much time as possible for questions from the committee. If you wish, you can request a few minutes at the end for summation. Please introduce yourself at the beginning of your presentation for Hansard and please begin now.

Mr McGuinty: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am the president of the Notre Development Corp, a northern company that acquired the Adams mine near Kirkland Lake. Our firm for the last three years has been working with municipalities in the north, the greater Toronto area and rail companies to develop a provincial waste management system for consideration. Our company has designated this system Rail Cycle North. The name accurately reflects the environmental benefits of rail, the commitment to the 3Rs and the economic partnership between the north and the south.

This morning I will attempt to address, as clearly and concisely as possible, the concerns of our company in many areas of northern Ontario and specifically the Kirkland Lake region in the Timiskaming district concerning Bill 143. These same concerns are shared by many others who have worked during these three years to provide alternative solutions to waste management in the greater Toronto area and develop a provincial partnership. You will hear from many of these during these hearings.

Specifically, our concerns are focused on part II of Bill 143, the restriction on movement of waste outside the greater Toronto area. This section of the bill, if passed in its current form, will have serious long-term repercussions on the citizens of the greater Toronto area, on the north, on the province and the existing environmental act. We believe this section of the bill is aimed specifically at the greater Toronto area and is unreasonable in its intent. Moreover, it may establish a serious precedent for other municipalities in the province.

I will provide a brief overview of the inconsistencies we see in this aspect of the legislation. Then I will provide a visual presentation on alternatives which this bill will eliminate if it is passed in its current form.

The Minister of Environment, in part I of this bill, has created the Interim Waste Authority Ltd with the responsibility to find new landfills for the greater Toronto area for a minimum of the next 20 years. Our concerns centre on the inconsistencies of the mandate which the IWA has been given by Mrs Grier regarding the current Environmental Assessment Act. These inconsistencies allow the the IWA to ignore potential alternatives which have already been established, specifically by Metro Toronto and the Kirkland Lake region in the north. These alternatives have the potential to be a superior environmental solution for the greater Toronto area, the north and the province as a whole.

The Interim Waste Authority is currently conducting site searches for new landfills within York/Metro and the regions of Durham and Peel. I have attended three of the first six public consultation meetings in York/Metro where documents prepared by the Interim Waste Authority outlining its mandate were distributed for public review. I believe the people are not hearing the real story about the impact of part II of Bill 143 and new landfills in the greater Toronto area.

My presentation today will ask you to evaluate whether the minister, by introducing part II of this bill, is providing wise management of the environment for the greater Toronto area and the province as it applies to the disposal of residual waste. I ask you to concentrate on residual waste.

The existing Environmental Assessment Act clearly states that an evaluation of reasonable alternatives is a fundamental part of its protection for the citizens of Ontario. Part II of Mrs Grier's legislation, which is before you, will change that protection. No alternatives to landfilling of residual waste in the greater Toronto area will be considered. The minister would ask you to substitute waste reduction and recycling as alternatives under her process. Waste reduction is not an alternative to the landfilling of residual waste, which is the waste generated after all of the 3Rs have been accomplished.

The mandate of the Interim Waste Authority is to find new landfills within the boundaries of the greater Toronto area. Clearly, the concern which I would like to address is: Why? Why is the movement of residual waste outside the greater Toronto boundaries eliminated from consideration in this bill? On what proven environmental principle is this legislation based, other than a personal philosophical position taken by the minister herself, and I must say early in her mandate.

I would like to provide a visual presentation which will show details of a reasonable alternative, one which will be eliminated under this bill. I would ask you to keep in mind during this presentation the following information:

1. No state or province in North America, that we can find, is trying to find environmental solutions for solid waste by limiting movement of waste within its own state or province.

2. We can find no metropolitan region of a similar size in North America which, if eliminating incineration, is establishing new landfills within urban areas like the greater Toronto area.

3. Part II of Bill 143 seems to be a contravention of NDP policy as noted in its document called Greening the Province, wherein it was stated in part IV relating to transportation:

"The rail corridors in Ontario, including those being vacated by VIA in the south, need to be integrated into an overall transit and development strategy that, on the one hand, moves people into and out of existing metropolitan cores more quickly and efficiently, and on the other hand facilitates economic development in rural areas of the province, especially northern Ontario."

4. The Rail Cycle North project, which you are about to review, received the support of 69% of the residents in Kirkland Lake in the recent municipal election. They want this project to be reviewed under the current environmental assessment process.

I would now like to go to my visual presentation. I believe, in watching the presentation, that the question period after is very important, so what I will try to do here is actually move through this a little quicker than perhaps I had planned. I believe they are going to dim the lights a little bit for this presentation.


As I indicated, we gave it a name, Rail Cycle North, and what we would like to be able to do is substantiate to the committee and the minister that this is not an out-of-sight, out-of-mind project. It is not just a hole in the ground in northern Ontario. It is basically a waste management system for the province.

It is basically supported in the southern terminal by two major railways, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. The city of Vaughan supports the initiative for Canadian National and Canadian Pacific for an intermodal yard. The existing rail infrastructure of the Ontario Northland Railway and Canadian National that has served northern Ontario and the mining industry in the north for the last 22 years, moving approximately two million pellets of iron ore a year to Hamilton, will be reused in the end at the other northern terminal.

I would like you to address the fact that this is not just a hole in the ground. I would like you to look at whether this site will have any impact on agriculture, tourism, new traffic patterns, etc. Clearly we could touch briefly on some slides that the Dofasco company showed the council in Kirkland Lake in 1986. In 1986, the Adams mine injected $40 million into the local economy. Obviously, a major part of that was to pay the wages of the individuals, but clearly in northern Ontario, as in southern Ontario right now, we have industries closing that affect the entire region. That mine affected Sudbury to the tune of $1.5 million in expenditures, and in fact in Timmins to the tune of $1 million. Actually, the Sherman mine in Temagami closed at the same time and you could double the impact on the northern area of northern Ontario because of that.

We all applaud the things you have heard from Drew Blackwell and the waste diversion office. There is no one in this province, I think, who disagrees with the minister's policies in those areas. But clearly that is a tremendous target, and in northern Ontario, as I will touch on at the end, we have problems in any of these diversion targets resulting in economic development.

This is a little bit of a complicated slide, but basically it looks at what our waste options are in Ontario. This bill ruled out incineration, which is the left part of the slide. The previous government had instituted, and the minister rightly gives Jim Bradley a lot of credit for, the recycling. This government is going to stress reduction of waste, and again, rightly so. It is the right way to go. But notwithstanding how well we do, if we meet those 50% targets, we are faced with a substantial amount of residual waste that has to be landfilled, whether it is in the GTA, northern Ontario or wherever.

The problem is Metro's garbage, and it is the Keele Valley landfill that is the focus of a lot of controversy. Clearly the Keele Valley landfill, as you have heard from ministry officials, is one of the largest, safest landfills in Canada. The problem, though, in siting landfills or new landfills within metropolitan areas is, notwithstanding how safe you can make the environmental aspects of collection of leaching, you cannot negate against suggesting at the Keele Valley landfill the 900 to 1,000 tractor-trailers and trucks a day that go by the homes of those people that are within a quarter of a mile.

This is another shot of the north end of the Keele Valley landfill. That cell is ready to be landfilled and we can see an industrial development right on the edge of the landfill. This is the reality of the Keele Valley landfill and the reality of the problem.

What will Bill 143 and new landfills in the greater Toronto area mean? Basically, the bill says those are the boundaries of the new landfills. This is the Keele Valley landfill in Durham, and as we heard from the mayor of Mississauga, she does not have a problem. But basically this bill says that if a safer site could be found right there, just outside those boundaries, it cannot be used. Never mind Kirkland Lake at this point in time; you cannot use that site. You arbitrarily have to use a site inside those boundaries, whether it is the safest site or not.

We have dealt extensively in the north with Metro Toronto. Clearly, the issue is Metro Toronto's garbage. Nobody wants it in the greater Toronto area and nobody wants it outside of the greater Toronto area. I agree with Rhonda Hustler yesterday, who we heard say that rural areas of northern Ontario or southern Ontario who do not want it do not have to take it.

But clearly, with the site search that is being directed now by the IWA, I think it may be safe to assume that Metro's garbage may go to York. There is a document, I believe, that York has available that I had an opportunity to view that basically says we have the Oak Ridges moraine running through the centre of York region. The sites that were looked at prior to the IWA taking it over long-term were a site up here in King township, a permanent expansion at Keele Valley, and the other potential long-term sites are right here in the town of Markham. They are no further north out of the urban core area than Keele Valley is.

The Interim Waste Authority has given these numbers in terms of the waste generation for the York-Metro site search. They are saying that during the period to the year 2015, 76 million tonnes of waste will be generated. The waste reduction office has said that we will reduce 37 million tonnes of that. Metro Toronto is saying it will do better than that. But the critical thing about the IWA's mandate is it has to find a landfill for 39 million tonnes of residual waste. That is a landfill in York twice the size of Keele Valley. That is really what we are talking about here in terms of part II of the bill.

As I listened to Metro Toronto being castrated in many hearings -- that had not found a solution, that it had not done their job -- I did not agree with that. Metro Toronto basically, if you look at what its waste generation would be out of that total, less its diversion, needs a place for 30 million tonnes of solid waste. They had, over a two-year period, worked with the northern Ontario communities and had come to an agreement after eight months of tough negotiations; not that northern Ontario would take all of Metro's waste, but they entered into an agreement, signed a legal document that said they would take 1.5 million tonnes a year for 20 years, subject to the communities agreeing to take more. That works out to 30 million tonnes. Metro needed a capacity of 30 million tonnes. In essence, if this site was allowed to go through to an environmental assessment and was successful, there may be no need for Metro Toronto's garbage to go to York. I believe that Metro was working responsibly.

The second part of that agreement was that northern Ontario said it would not take their waste without a recycling component that goes with it. The agreement basically calls for 120,000 tonnes of product to be processed through a plant that is usable product in the north. It is said in many cases: "How can we ship product to northern Ontario? This is a ridiculous idea." If you look at the total tonnages involved, that figure over 20 years is only 2.4 million out of a total 28 million diversion. To me, that seems to be a small partnership contribution to sustainable development in northern Ontario to assist the 3Rs in the north.

Basically, if we have the system in place in southern Ontario, what are the opportunities? As I said at the outset, we are going to reuse the existing rail structure that serviced the north and the south for the last 20 years. How will that be done? The infrastructure in Metro Toronto is in place. Right now there are seven transfer stations where the garbage trucks transfer their garbage into tractor-trailers. You will hear in upcoming hearings from both major railways about the transition to the intermodal system, about railways across North America and the world that are using it to move solid waste.

I will briefly show you a system in the city of Seattle where, after five years of a site search, it opted to use its existing transfer stations, put its waste in containers and move it 330 miles to a landfill in the desert where it has a cooperative host community, and there is no impact on that community's environment nor impact on Seattle's downtown urban core. These are slides that actually show that rail operation. You will be hearing much more detail on these from the railways specifically, both of the national railways, in upcoming hearings.

Here is a situation where that rail line does not go directly to the landfill and they have to offload the containers and move them by truck.

If you get to the northern end of the partnership, shall I call it, or the northern end of the waste management system, this is the Adams mine. There are 8,000 acres in question there. We are not at any point in time dumping garbage down mine shafts; you have heard that so often. We are specifically using open pits that were mined, as I call them, like an ice cream cone. They are not canyon mines, as I call them, like at the Sherman mine. There is a specific reason to use these to make them environmentally acceptable.

You heard from Northwatch. I hope to be questioned by the committee here extensively on the public consultation that has gone on, but basically that is where the property sits in conjunction with the three communities: Kirkland Lake, Larder Lake and Engelhart to the south. Our company went voluntarily to those three communities over three years ago and said: "This is what we would like to do. We would like to take this project to Metro. We'd like to introduce it. We would like you, who represent 93% of the population of that region, to negotiate independently with Metro Toronto on benefits and things that could happen." Those things happened over the last two years.


I have probably $7 million worth of engineering work here in front of me. Obviously, before Metro Toronto looked at this it did a hydrology study. They went on the property and they did a drilling program. They wanted to determine how good those rock walls were compared to those four-foot clay liners that are out at Keele Valley. Basically this drilling program was a preliminary one. The results of it are here.

The cores were extracted; it came back and said two basic things, that the impermeability factors of the rock walls were equivalent to the clay liners that are installed at Keele Valley, but here we have 300 or 400 or 1,000 feet of rock, and it substantiated what the mining company of Dofasco knew for many years, that because this mine was mined like a cone, all the water around it flows into the pit. They actually drilled holes to let the water in. First, from a layman's point of view, if they had to drill holes to let the water in, the impermeability factor is pretty good, and second, that pit has been not used for nine years, it is 600 feet deep, there is now 180 feet of water in it and it keeps rising every year. The environmental aspects, we believe, look excellent.

This is a cross-section of the Adams mine pit. In terms of environmental security, there is not one landfill in northern Ontario that has the same type of demanding environmental security southern Ontario has. The essence of environmental security in landfills is the containment of the leachate, the collection of it, moving it back out and treating it. There is no place in the north that has this type of environmental security. People have asked whether this will work.

The mining industry and the technology in Canada has this in operation. Basically this is a uranium mine in Rabbit Lake, Saskatchewan, that was mined to almost the same depth as the south pit. In 1985 they found other uranium deposits about nine kilometres away. They did another environmental assessment that said the safest place to put the tailings was not in new conventional tailings dams but back in the pit they had excavated because the walls were so impermeable.

Since 1985 they have been putting in tailings from the uranium operation, but Ontario mining technology went out there so that they could treat the water. They put a drift out from the bottom. They intersected it with a raise or shaft. There are three pumps in there. Since 1985 they have been pumping the water back out, putting it in a pipeline to the mill and treating it before it goes into the environment. I am not saying that is the exact design, but I am saying that the technology to do these things is Canadian technology.

Kirkland Lake and the north and our company have never said the garbage should come to the north without a full environmental assessment -- not an EPA approval, not an interim approval; we did not want to be an interim solution. We feel the site, going through a full environmental assessment and measured up against any options in the greater Toronto area, has a possibility to be successful. It has things that will take millions and millions of dollars and years to put in place in the greater Toronto area.

The rail transportation is in place today. There is hydro, there are buildings, there is industrial capacity on that site. The Interim Waste Authority mandate is for a minimum of 20 million tonnes. The minimum on that site is 25 million, and I am sure the capacity could go to 40 million. There would be no impact on those communities. We need a full environmental assessment to prove that. This is all anybody is asking for up there.

Metro Toronto recently went through a mini-environmental assessment to find enough clay in York region to environmentally and safely close its landfill. My understanding is they were defeated by the Environmental Assessment Board after about a $3-million expenditure. On that site we had one drill hole go through 362 feet of clay before it hit bedrock. All the things it needs to create environmentally acceptable landfill sites are in place.

Our company made a commitment to the community that there would be no landfill operation without a recycling component and sustainable development that went with it. That is in our purchase and sale agreements with Dofasco and it was followed through in the agreements with Metro. Why is this? Because the north feels it wants to be part of waste management solutions. The north has no chance to be part of these solutions right now, because we have only 800,000 people in all of northern Ontario: We can divert, blue-box our brains out, but we cannot generate enough tonnage to create one secondary job.

The essence of the Metro agreements was a shared agreement. We have an asset the south does not have, and you have assets we cannot generate. It is all predicated on the use of rail and the environmental acceptability of it.

The minister indicated it would be unconscionable to ship garbage to northern Ontario, yet, as we all know and have heard many times, garbage from Toronto is going across the border to New York state and Ohio, far greater distances than the 365 miles by rail to Kirkland Lake. We have heard that many communities in the province have solid waste problems and, using a provincial intermodal rail system, there may be opportunities to access this system. The city of North Bay cannot find a landfill and has applied for its third emergency extension. The Ontario Northland Railway is based in North Bay.

Everything that was developed between Metro and the communities was full public disclosure. There was a statement of principles developed and passed by Metro council and all the communities. About six months later the definitive agreements were put in place and there was nothing done in the north behind closed doors or in Metropolitan Toronto. Metro committed to build one of its plants in the north. If you look at Metro Toronto's new waste management strategy, its total capital expenditure for everything is $650 million. This is not a big, big consideration, but this is a partnership that I think we have been trying to develop.

In my presentations, which I have done 170-some times, I stress the environmental aspects. I do not spend a lot of time on the jobs, but clearly the jobs are important at this point in time in northern Ontario.

Rail Cycle North: What is it then? It is a connotation that basically represents a lot of things. We have an intermodal site available at this end in Toronto and we can show documentation that every other major urban area in North America is looking at the use of rail. We basically could reduce truck traffic in York region. There would be no capital expenditure for new roads in the greater Toronto area for this particular site and the use of it. No new landfills may be required. It is possible that the north may discuss with York and Metro to expand that total to around two million. If that was a fact, we could take York's garbage north.

There have been suggestions here that basically this would be a private sector operation. Personally, I believe that this fits the philosophy of the existing government better than anything that could come forth, because we are going to use a provincial crown corporation, the site will be owned by Metro Toronto or the Interim Waste Authority, and the only place that there would be private sector involvement would be to get the solid waste from Metro to North Bay. In that situation there will be a competitive tender between the two major national railways to get it there. What better system can we have that incorporates all of those things?

Again, I do not believe this is a hole in the ground. I do not believe that the north is oppressed. I know you will hear from the north later in the hearings. What I do believe is the reality of this situation, that this is something that has been developed over two and a half years with cooperation. It has developed partnerships. There is innovation in technology here and there is some vision, long term, for this province in waste management.

That ends my slide presentation. I will just summarize my comments here before questions.

In summary, I would like to refer to the comments made by the Minister of the Environment at the conclusion of the debate on Bill 143 on December 10. She stated, "We heard very little about the fact that the section of the bill dealing with a search for long-term sites within the greater Toronto area provides that this search will take place in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act." Clearly this is not the case, as Bill 143 will change the intent of the act and refuses the evaluation of alternatives to new landfills within the greater Toronto area, an historical part of the Environmental Assessment Act.

Mrs Grier goes on to state, "The decision not to haul the GTA garbage to Kirkland Lake...is an environmental decision." How can that be? Rail Cycle North may in fact be an alternative that is a far superior solution for the environment and the minister is refusing to allow the evaluation of this option.

Finally, the minister has stated: "Those decisions have to be taken for the sake of the people and the economy of the greater Toronto area. They have to be taken for the environment of the greater Toronto area, nay, for the environment of the province, and as some members have said, for the future of this province and the children of this province." Again, I do not believe this statement can be based on fact. The fact is that the children of this province in the north or the south and the economy of the province are not being served by what may be a nearsighted attempt to jam residual waste down the throats of the citizens of the greater Toronto area without evaluating alternatives that other communities in North America have proven to be acceptable.


The minister has stated to the mayor of Kirkland Lake, "Why don't you do your own environmental assessment?" At a time when Metro and the province have an option on the site, it is difficult to understand the minister's reasoning when she dictates in this bill that Kirkland Lake will not be evaluated. However, all parties to this waste management system believe it deserves to be evaluated. We believe the minister's policy in part II of the bill is a regressive step. We are therefore investigating the submission of an application for the greater Toronto area solid waste outside the Interim Waste Authority site search. We will do it if necessary; however, it is a colossal waste of money.

Additionally, we are committed to informing the residents of the greater Toronto area, just as we have done with the residents of northern Ontario, that an environmental alternative to new landfills in the York-Metro region or the GTA has been developed. People in the greater Toronto region should be advised that Metro and other GTA members have done a good job prior to this legislation. They should know that the railways are an environmental solution currently being used around the world and that a provincial partnership is in place between the north and the south that can maximize our assets for the mutual benefit of all the citizens in the province. In February we will be starting public meetings throughout the greater Toronto area in conjunction with the Canadian national railways and with the full support of the northern communities.

We must also make it very clear: Northern Ontario and the Kirkland Lake region are not looking for handouts. We will not take waste without the economic benefits of recycling as outlined in the Metro agreements. We have been challenged by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, Miss Martel, in northern Ontario to find our own solutions for economic recovery. Solid waste management and recycling is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world. The north wants to explore these opportunities in partnership with Metro and the greater Toronto area. Mrs Grier, with part II of Bill 143, will deny this opportunity.

My heart goes out to Miss Martel because with all the problems we have had, mine closures and whatever, she has probably one of the toughest jobs of any of the ministers of the government. However, it is extremely distressing that Miss Martel, the minister responsible for the Ontario Northland Railway and northern development, supports Mrs Grier's policy and refuses to discuss Rail Cycle North, I believe to the detriment of the citizens of northern Ontario.

Finally, during the last provincial election campaign Bob Rae stopped at the Adams mine and made the following statement: "Today, we are in front of the closed Adams mine. Here, 325 workers used to produce iron ore for Dofasco, Canada's largest steelmaker. Company officials in southern Ontario decided to shut down the mine. The Adams mine was Kirkland Lake's largest employer. Its closure on March 31, 1990, was devastating -- the equivalent of losing 70,000 jobs in Metro Toronto." The Premier finished his comments with this statement: "Time and again, the Liberals have ignored the needs of the people and chosen the side of their corporate friends in southern Ontario. New Democrats have chosen sides too -- and we say it's time the people in the north called the shots."

Madam Chair, through part II of Bill 143, the Premier, the Minister of the Enviroment and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines are refusing to consider the north, let alone having them call the shots.

During the next few weeks of your hearings we will be working with the northern communities, with the railways, with the greater Toronto area and hopefully with the committee to propose an amendment for the committee which will allow the evaluation of this alternative for the overall betterment of the province.

Sustainable development, economic opportunities, new job creation and the evaluation of environmental alternatives must be part of responsible environmental legislation. The government must review this bill. It must listen to realistic and detailed alternatives which will reflect the realities of the 1990s and beyond. We trust the government at the conclusion of these hearings would be prepared to amend part II. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.

Mr McClelland: Mr McGuinty, let's start where you have finished. The economy of northern Ontario -- I understand you might be able to confirm it, you are very much in touch with what is happening there. In the first quarter of this year, 1992, 1,200 individuals will be put on the social support system of municipalities in and around your region, is that correct? As a result of layoffs people are running out of UI benefits, and in the first quarter of 1992 approximately 1,200 people will be the recipients of municipally funded benefits.

Mr McGuinty: I do not have the specific number but I would concur, with the time I spend in the Kirkland Lake region in northern Ontario, that clearly the job loss is extensive. The most important problem we have in northern Ontario right now is that we do not have any new opportunities. The traditional jobs we are losing in northern Ontario are the skilled machinists, the heavy equipment operators, the electricians. There are some from Kapuskasing, Kirkland Lake and whatever. We have no new opportunities in northern Ontario. The problem I see in northern Ontario is, what are we going to do in the future to correct some of the things you are saying? I think it is a very difficult problem in northern Ontario and I do not see anybody coming with the answers at this point in time.

Mr McClelland: Bearing in mind that you are looking at anywhere in the range of 50% to 60% unemployment in some communities in the north, what kind of technical data or factual basis has the minister presented to you for ruling out even the consideration of or looking at the option you presented today? Were you consulted with respect to Bill 41? Were you consulted in any way in terms of the decision made to rule out without giving due consideration? Were you given any kind of consideration or consultation at all prior to the minister stating, as a matter of ideology, "I'm sorry, we're not looking at this"?

Mr McGuinty: To be very honest, and with all due respect to the minister, I think the thing that catalysed support for this project throughout northern Ontario and from across the province was when the minister announced in the House that she felt it was unconscionable to ship garbage to northern Ontario. I know that she, in a telephone conversation to the three mayors, basically told them she did not want to discuss this with them.

I know that during the formation of that policy there were three groups from my region of Kirkland Lake invited to two meetings to discuss this movement. Community groups in the north wrote to the minister, tried to be part of those discussions and were denied access. In fact, all that is being asked for by one community group that is not for bringing garbage to northern Ontario, Dr Duncan's fact group, is an opportunity to have it reviewed. I understand they now have a file opened with the Office of the Ombudsman and a letter has been written to the minister on why they were not included in the discussions.

From our point of view I will say only that we have not had direct access. I will say, though, that the Attorney General, Mr Hampton, and Mr Wildman did invite me down a couple of months ago to make my presentation, but as for any direct access into her decisions, no, I do not think there was any.

Mr McClelland: I find it interesting that a government which prided itself and stated with great fanfare that it was open and accessible and a government of and for the people would not even give you a hearing. It is at least a common courtesy.

I want to talk in terms of fairness. The government as well has talked about being fair. Are you aware that within a very few weeks of the minister making her announcement prohibiting the shipment of waste from Toronto to Kirkland Lake, saying, "I'm not going to consider it," she agreed to allow Kingston and Storrington to ship into Ottawa? That happened in a very close time frame in terms of proximity. I wonder what your feeling is in terms of the fairness of that and the equity, if you will, the reasonableness of that taking place at the same time the minister is saying within this bill, "You can't do it, but I'm going to reserve unto myself the authority to order one municipality to send to another municipality for up to five years." How do you reconcile in your mind the fact that you were told, "No, we won't do it," and within weeks another community was told, "You will do it," and the minister said at the same time, "I'm reserving the right to do it"? How does that wash with you in terms of logic, consistency and fairness?

Mr McGuinty: As I said in my presentation, I think the minister's statement about not moving waste to Kirkland Lake or wherever was made very early in her mandate. My concern with the government and the minister is that during the last year or so we have not had at least a chance to discuss things like rail transportation, etc. Specifically, I think the Kingston situation reflects the realities of what is happening with waste management in the province of Ontario. The not definitive research our company and the rail companies have done sees a tremendous growing trend to the movement of residual waste and things outside urban cores. We see that as a reality.


I think the Kingston situation reflects realities -- depending on its problem, and I am not totally aware of that, although we did hear the mayor, who is the head of AMO, talk to it briefly. I think centralized facilities are going to be the way of the future. I do not think small landfills that are going to help this little area and put a million tonnes here is the way of the future in waste management, as our research indicates.

In my written submission to you there is an excellent article on rail haul that was researched in the December issue of Waste Age magazine. It itemizes all the regions and communities in North America that are looking at this as an option. Los Angeles, California, is an example. The two major systems they are looking at to solve their problem by 1995 are rail haul systems. I happened to be speaking on Monday on part of my research. It may be a prejudiced comment, because they manufacture intermodal containers. I asked this gentleman, "Where do you see the movement of waste 10 years from today outside urban cores?" He said that basic residual waste would be moved by rail anywhere from 400 to 1,000 miles away. I have a study from New York City that shows very clearly that this is its only option. I have some difficulty understanding why Metro Toronto and the GTA, which is the largest metropolitan region in Canada, is not at least open to the evaluation of this as an environmental benefit.

Mr Martin: I want to start by complimenting you, Mr McGuinty, on a wonderful presentation and also on the extensive work you have done in preparing this proposal. It is nice to see you again. You did in fact present to me in my office some time ago the same proposal, which I in turn carried to my colleagues in government.

After having said that, I want to begin by saying I think it is untrue to say that Ruth Grier alone made the decision not to ship garbage into the north. Ruth Grier in consultation with her colleagues, and there are 10 of us out of northern Ontario, decided that the people we represent did not want philosophically to become the garbage dump for Metro or southern Ontario. We still feel very strongly about that.

In spite of the excellent argument you present for this particular proposal, we see it as setting a very compelling precedent for the proliferation of this kind of operation without the work being done that you have obviously done here, which could become a problem for us, because historically the south has not been all that sensitive to some of the things we felt we needed to do in the north to really develop our industry. Added value to the resources we extract from the ground and the environment of northern Ontario is usually sent down here in bulk to be manufactured and to create wealth, which actually has produced the garbage that is now creating a problem in the south. I guess there is nothing to date to convince us that this would not be the case in this instance.

Having said that, however, I am very interested in any industrial potential that this may have for northern Ontario and am more than willing, as I said when we met in my office, to entertain discussion in that direction. One of the people who presented here, I think it was yesterday, talked about anything that we might do, in the way of recycling particularly, being economically viable. I suggest to you that in your proposal there is a heavy emphasis on government involvement, through government-owned facilities, etc, to do the recycling piece of this action. As it becomes less and less economically viable, perhaps -- this was a suggestion by those who come out of the private sector to do a whole lot of recycling -- then it becomes easier and easier to just say: "We're already dumping garbage in there. We might as well dump a bit more." That concerns me.

To shed a wee bit of light on this whole thing, the Northwatch group that came here the other day answered a question I asked regarding participating in some partnership around this question and looking at this as an industrial venture that would create some wealth for the north and fit in with the resource extraction industry we are already involved in up there in a big way. I asked if there was some potential to look at it in that light. For those of us who live and work and breathe, as you do, in northern Ontario and have children and hope they will do the same, we would want to discuss that a bit further.

Having said all that, perhaps I might invite some response.

Mr McGuinty: First, I totally agree that the first member of the government who had the time and courtesy to meet with us was Mr Martin. Early on, he suggested we put a brief together for the northern caucus, which we did, but it did not seem to go anywhere.

In regard to your statements, I think we have to deal with the realistic realities of recycling opportunities in the north. It took two years to negotiate an agreement, and I disagree with your statement that just because this system got going, it is going to open the door to more. There are definitive agreements that were worked out with the best legal advice the north could find down here on Bay Street, and those are firm agreements. They cannot be broken unless the north agrees.

Unless the government wants to finance it, unless the greater Toronto area wants to pay for it, there is no possible way anybody is going to send recyclable products to northern Ontario unless there is a compensating benefit. There is no possible way that is going to happen.

In North Bay, as in Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury, we are blue-boxing, we are recycling. We have trucks driving around that say, "North Bay recycles." Well, North Bay does not recycle; North Bay diverts from landfill. We package it up and ship it down here to be either remanufactured or have something done. So I do not think what you are saying, in the reality of today's environment and economics -- Mr Wiseman clearly says we need to supply markets, which we agree with. Nobody is going to ship product to northern Ontario just for the good of northern Ontario's health.

I disagree with you also, with all due respect, in terms of the statement that northern Ontario does not want to be Toronto's garbage dump. The council in Sault Ste Marie passed a resolution on June 9, 1991, that basically states it "lends full support to the Northeastern Ontario Municipalities Action Group, the Notre Development Corp and the towns of Kirkland Lake, Englehart and Larder Lake in the establishment of recycling and solid waste disposal facilities at the Adams mine site providing all environmental concerns are satisfied."

In the last two years, the Federation of Northern Ontario Mayors and Reeves has supported this project. They support the evaluation of it. Nobody supports bringing it in unless it is environmentally acceptable. Also, there is the Highway 11 North Mayors' Action Committee. I can supply your party with all the northern Ontario communities that are supporting this. So when you say the north does not support it, I have some difficulty on where the data comes from.

I happened to hear some comments from the Northwatch organization. I think we have to understand something. As a proponent of a new project, there are two things you can do. First, you can come out, do your studies, whatever, submit them to the government and not talk to the people. If you do that, you are accused of hiding something. Or you can go to the people, speak to them, talk to them and explain it. If you do that, in some cases some people are saying you are out there trying to sell it.

Our company opted to continue to talk to the people. We spoke to over 5,000 people in over 170 presentations in hospitals, schools and people's homes. We think we have in northern Ontario, which was reflected by that referendum, an informed, adequate constituency. I have absolutely no doubt, Mr Martin, if I take that message to your community or Sudbury or Timmins, the support will be the same from northern Ontario to have this evaluated.


Mr Carr: Having done 170 presentations, I can understand why you do such a fine job, and I want to compliment you on it. I was interested in your statements on Bob Rae's comments when he was up there. As I was sitting here, I was reflecting that it is small wonder people get a little cynical about politicians when they say one thing at one point and then another thing later on.

I was interested in the last point you touched on, the perceptions in the community. You mentioned the 69%. I guess you have met with the 5,000 people. What are the reasons people are saying they want this? I understand all the circumstances you have done, the tremendous studies. I look at that and see the minister nevertheless saying, "We won't do it, because regions have to look after their own garbage." People from other jurisdictions must be looking at us and saying: "No wonder you're in such a crisis up there in Ontario. If this is how you handle the waste decisions, no wonder you have an economy the way it is."

What are the people up there saying the reasons are they would like to proceed with this particular venture?

Mr McGuinty: My response to that is a continuation of the fact that people need to be informed. "Solid waste management" are not bad words. "Garbage" is not a bad word. Garbage beside your home, in a new landfill in an urban area -- that is probably a bad word. But in essence, making a facility like this safe, if you take traditional industries -- I will use northern Ontario: If we were going to bring a new pulp and paper mill to northern Ontario and we were going to bring a new gold mine or we were going to bring a solid waste management facility and you had to analyse the impact on the environment on a scale of 1 to 10, I am sure the effluents from the pulp and paper mill might be a 9 and the gold mine and the acid tailings might be a 5. What might the potential impact on the environment in northern Ontario of a solid waste management system be, a 1?

What we have done is to have taken the initiative to go out and speak to people about this. This is a very abbreviated visual presentation of what I normally do in terms of slides and detail. All we have is an informed community. I do not think what I have done is any different from what anybody else wants to do if they want to take the time and the effort and go and meet the people and talk to them about it.

That is the result of it. Nobody in Kirkland Lake region is running out and saying, "We want the garbage." I repeat that. They are only saying, "Let's let the environmental assessment take place." If there are things that are unearthed that make people nervous and it is not successful, as long as the public consultation and the details can take place, what is wrong with that? That is our process. Why is that being cut off when around the world rail and situations like this are a growth industry?

Mr Carr: Do I still have time?

The Chair: You do.

Mr Carr: Be careful, my boss is here. Maybe he is checking up on me.

The second question relates to Toronto. We will hear this afternoon from the people in York region and Metropolitan Toronto. You refer to the studies there, millions of dollars worth of studies that have been done. We have heard about how the people of the north feel about the project. What is your sense of the people, in particular the people in Metro and very particularly in York? What is their perception? You had some letters from people, I guess it was Sault Ste Marie, that you read out to Mr Martin. What are the people of York and Metro saying and what are their councils saying?

Mr McGuinty: I think it is very clear that Metro Toronto supported this, because it did all the work and spent approximately $3 million in studies to get the answers.

Perhaps as an aside to your question, as I said earlier in my presentation, I went to three of the six site search meetings where the IWA document was introduced and we broke up into workshop groups. I found it very rewarding, because the ordinary people of Toronto did not understand. They heard about Kirkland Lake, etc. So I took the time in the workshop to explain: "Here's what the situation is. Here's what the agreement says. The north does not want your garbage without a recycling component that goes with it. Yes, you have to send us some recyclables."

But one of the interesting things is that I would say 99% of the people in the greater Toronto area do not know the province owns a railway. They did not know that the province owns and manages the Ontario Northland Railway as a crown corporation. When I explained that some of the revenues were going to go to ensure that our own railway remains economically viable -- you can see in my presentation where the president of the railway has indicated that he has some big problems -- I found it very rewarding that the ordinary people in the greater Toronto area looked at that and said, "Jeez, this makes sense."

To finish with your question, I think what has happened since is that obviously the Interim Waste Authority and the minister have taken this over and taken the responsibility from Metro Toronto's hands. Again, I have only summarized that question to say that I do not think Metro Toronto has been given the due it deserves for the work and the time and the effort it spent. Allan Tonks, Joan King, the people from Metro have been to Kirkland Lake a number of times.

I know my time is running short, but the story I like the best is that we were up there having lunch, all the economic development officers and the mayors were there, and somebody said to the chairman of Metro Toronto, "Mr Tonks, I know you're looking at other options," and whatever, and he said, "Yes, obviously we are, but this is the only place we can go and have lunch."

Mr Carr: As you know, the Ministry of the Environment has put together what it calls Quick Facts. It was attached to your submission.

The Chair: You have one minute.

Mr Carr: They put together Quick Facts. If you could very quickly give us an answer on what you would say to that particular piece, were some of the things you disagree with in there?

Mr McGuinty: We have distributed today a release, not to counter the minister or cause the minister any grief or any of those things at all, but clearly the specific things the minister said in terms of Quick Facts about moving garbage to sites outside the greater Toronto area are erroneous. We pointed out some things.

First, this will be a public system. It will be owned by the Ontario government, the Ontario Northland Railway, by Metro Toronto or the province. This is something I think is important for people to find out. This fits the philosophy, I believe, of the NDP government on public ownership.

I think what we want to try to do is work out with the minister a system of information or whatever we can in the next couple of months to try to accommodate something she might find acceptable with an amendment to part II.

Mr Wiseman: My question is slightly different. If there is to be an environmental assessment hearing on the Adams mine site, as you request, all locations in Ontario would have to be put back on the table as alternatives to be evaluated. This would include Lambton, Marmora, Plympton, Ajax, Pickering and many other sites, like Cayuga and so on, which means that everything would be back on the table. This would basically reconstitute the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee process, which I can tell you has little or zero credibility in my community.

I just have a great deal of difficulty in opening up this process again to the transportation of Metropolitan Toronto's waste when I have fought for so long to prevent that from happening. How do you think the citizens in those communities -- I can tell you how they will react in Pickering and Ajax -- would feel about having all those sites and all the problems put back on the table and going through all the turmoil Rhonda Hustler described to us yesterday?

Mr McGuinty: I think that is an excellent question, Mr Wiseman. I indicated earlier that I agree with Rhonda Hustler, that there should not be any place in Ontario that has to take Metro Toronto's garbage or the GTA garbage unless it is willing to, unless it is prepared to have first an environmental assessment. I agree with Ms Hustler that probably garbage from Metro down on farm land in London is a ridiculous idea, but clearly, in opening up the process, this bill is not law yet and an amendment can be clearly directed that it would have to include a a cooperative host community, and there would have to be some discussion on how that is, but I do not think we should rule out the opportunity to investigate this.

I agree with you. We should not open it up the way we did before. We should not cause that same type of controversy, but this option to be evaluated is not going to cause that controversy, as you are going to hear from Kirkland Lake in the hearings in the future. We have two years' work done with a cooperative region. I do not think you should open it up the way you did before, but I think there should be something in this Legislation, as you have heard before here, that does not restrict all options in the future.

I will give my best example, and we have my member here. The city of North Bay has been looking for a landfill for five years. North Bay is I think the second-largest geographical municipality or city in Ontario. Do you know where we are? We are 14 miles up Highway 11 north. We are not in the city of North Bay. We are not even in the district of Nipissing. We are in Timiskaming, on crown land; we are going to put a landfill in with attenuation and no liners.

Mrs Grier is going to pass a bill that sets a serious precedent. What you are saying is that North Bay could not go and make a deal with Sturgeon Falls. I agree that we should not open it up the way we did before, but the bill should have provision to allow things like voluntary negotiations between municipalities that got on; nobody held a gun to anybody's head.


The Chair: What I am going to allow now is for members to put questions on the record. If there is time, there will be an opportunity for Mr McGuinty to sum up; if not, we will ask that he submit his answers in writing.

Mr Wiseman: I would like you to define "willing host," in the sense that Pickering and Ajax were unwilling hosts but the region of Durham, which makes the policy for waste management for all the municipalities, was a willing host. Therefore I would like you to define "willing host."

The Chair: Mrs Mathyssen?

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Mr McGuinty, for a very polished presentation. A referendum was placed on the ballot in the Kirkland Lake election in November. Basically it said, "Are you in favour of a full environmental assessment of the Adams mine solid waste disposal and recycling project?" That says nothing about taking Metro garbage, and it seems like a yes-yes referendum. In other words, if the citizen wants Metro garbage, that citizen is going to vote yes. If the citizen opposes Metro garbage and wants a full environmental assessment, that citizen is going to vote yes. We know there has been opposition, groups like Northwatch --

The Chair: Question, Mrs Mathyssen.

Mrs Mathyssen: How can you be so sure that you have the full support of northern communities, as you have suggested in your brief? How do you know that?

Mr Lessard: It is too bad we have run out of time here today, because this has been an enjoyable presentation and question period.

In your presentation you said that you agree with the minister's waste diversion targets. You have also said that reduction is the way to go, and I am getting from your presentation that what you are providing to the GTA is an economical way of dealing with the waste management crisis in this area. You have also made some comments about public ownership, but I think it is clear in my mind that the public ownership ends at the pit.

The Chair: Question, Mr Lessard.

Mr Lessard: I would like to know what incentives there would be for reduction to take place, given this economic alternative you have presented to landfill.

Mr Martin: I would like to ask Mr McGuinty, who represents a private corporation here, Notre Development, to maybe put on the record for us some of the financial details around his particular corporation and how it stands to gain in this, or how that comes together. Also, I would like you to put on the record the cost to Metropolitan Toronto, the cost to CP and CN, the cost to Ontario Northland Railway and the subsequent gain there that you claim will come from this project, so we can look at it and assess it for ourselves.

Mr Carr: One of mine was along the same lines: what Metro sees as the total saving, not just the overall cost, if that could somehow be done; I am sure it could be taken out of those reports.

Also, you probably have had many dealings with the Northwatch group. I just wondered if you could talk about some of the things they are saying, what your perception of that group is. Where they may in your estimation be wrong would be very helpful.

Mr McClelland: I have a couple questions for the ministry. I would like to have put on the record for the committee any data, technical analysis or studies that were done by the ministry staff to substantiate ruling out options such as Kirkland Lake -- I use that in generic terms -- or a statement to the effect, if it is the case, that there were no such studies done. Likewise I would like any studies, data, technical analysis or evaluation done with respect to the decision made to allow Kingston, Stormont and area waste to be sent to Ottawa, or, if in the alternative nothing of that sort was done, a letter to the effect that none of those studies were done.

I would also like to have from the ministry any comparable analysis or a summary of whether there is any comparable jurisdiction anywhere in North America where there is a possibility to have volume and proximity of two landfill sites located in an area comparable to York; and any analysis that might have been done by Treasury in terms of the economic impact the present policy might have in terms of economic development, specifically in waste management but generally to the economy in terms of messages that is sending to the business community elsewhere in North America; and any analysis done by the Treasury in terms of environmental policy impact on the position internationally, indeed, of Ontario as a result.

Mrs Fawcett: Could I just add Northumberland to that list, because I believe Northumberland's garbage was also being trucked to Ottawa.

The Chair: I realize that people watching these hearings are going to wonder how you are going to answer all those questions today. We know that is not possible. The clerk will provide you with a list of the questions the committee would appreciate your responding to in writing. Anyone who would like to communicate with the committee can do so through the course of our hearings and deliberations right through clause-by-clause. Anything that is received by February 14 becomes part of the public record. If it is received after February 14, it is available for members of the committee to consider during their work.

I would like to thank you very much for coming to the committee today. We have one minute left, if you would like to make a final comment, Mr McGuinty.

Mr McGuinty: Obviously I would like to thank the government for deciding to have the hearings. I would also just like to summarize to say that our company at no point in time wants to deal with this in a confrontational manner. We believe it has long-term opportunities for the north and the south; we are a northern company. I look forward to responding to the questions you have put on record to give you more data. Again, I hope to continue to work with the committee over the next few months and the next few years in waste management.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation today. I will call next Work on Waste USA. I believe it is going to take about five minutes for them to set up their presentation, so the committee will recess for five minutes to allow that to occur.

The committee recessed at 1107.



The Chair: The standing committee on social development is now in session. Our next presentation is from Work on Waste USA. You have one hour for your presentation. I would ask if you would begin by introducing yourself. We would appreciate it if you would leave as much time as possible for questions from the committee. Please begin your presentation now.

Dr Connett: My name is Paul Connett. I teach chemistry at St Lawrence University in Canton, New York. I have been doing that for the last nine years. For the last seven years I have been very much involved with the waste issue. In that time I have given over 700 presentations in 46 states in the United States, four provinces in Canada, and 13 different countries. Most of those presentations do not involve any kind of fee. Some do, but very few.

The first thing I would like to do is to address the fact that you were given a copy of an outrageous 45-minute videotape, together with some documents from a local newspaper where I live. This apparently was distributed by Mr R.M. Bremner, PE, who I understand is a former commissioner of public works in the city of Toronto. He currently works for a consulting firm and one of his clients is Ogden Martin Systems, a major incinerator builder.

I do not know where Mr Bremner gets his confidence to do something like this. I do not know the man. I do not think he knows me. I do not think he knows what I have been saying, what I have been doing, over the past seven years, yet he has felt confident enough to distribute this attack on my credibility. I hope his confidence will not evaporate, because I would like to debate Mr Bremner in Toronto, at a time of mutual choosing, to see if he can retain that confidence when we are together, one on one, to debate this waste issue.

I do not want to take too much time away from what you really want to hear but, just to point out, in this document there is a letter from Dr Samuel Chaulfont called Sound and Fury, attacking some of the things I was saying in St Lawrence county. You might be interested to know that Dr Samuel Chaulfont does not exist. This is an invented name. We had a great deal of trouble trying to track down this man. This is the calibre of the kind of information.

Basically what I have done, I believe, on this issue of waste, or attempted to do, is to bring common sense, basic chemical principles, a concern not only for local communities but planet Earth. I cannot be bought, I do not lie and, quite frankly, if that is a threat to the incinerator industry, I believe it says more about the incinerator industry than it does about me, if it is frightened of common sense, basic chemical principles, about someone who cannot be bought, does not lie and cares about communities, not only his own but across the world.

Enough about that. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have on that videotape and at some time in the future. When I get time, I will write out a point-by-point rebuttal.

Please excuse me. I got back from Europe after a three-week tour of Ireland, Spain, Northern Ireland and England on Sunday evening and I have my first class of the new semester on Monday, so it has been a bit of a rush. I do not have what I have to say to you in writing, but I will undertake to get copies of any transparencies I showed this morning to you in a few days.

The Chair: It is not necessary to have presentations in writing. Everything you say is being recorded by what we call Hansard and is available for the public and becomes part of the public record.

Dr Connett: In that case, maybe what I should do, then, is to look carefully at the transparencies and where there are diagrams and schematics that might be useful too.

The Chair: That would be helpful. Thank you.

Dr Connett: I am very happy to be in Ontario, and I am very happy to say that I believe this government is pioneering roads that other people talk about. Other people talk about moving from a consumer society to a conserver society, but it is all talk. Here you are really trying to do it. I applaud Ruth Grier and what she is trying to do with this policy. I have great pleasure going to other countries and talking about this ban on incineration. You are the first government that has an outright ban on trash incineration, and that in itself has had an influence in other countries.

What I have learned in this business is that it is very important to ask the right questions, because if you ask the wrong questions, you are going to get the wrong answers no matter how clever the person is whom you ask. I would like to illustrate this point with the first slide. Imagine you come home to your apartment and find an overflowing bathtub. You grab hold of a mug to try to empty that bathtub. That does not do it fast enough, so you go to a bucket. Then that does not do it fast enough and you go to a foot pump. Then you go to better available control technology: You go to an electric pump, which you probably power with a nuclear power station, all in an effort to empty this bathtub.

That is what a back-end thinker would do, working at the back end of the problem. A front-end thinker, I believe, would first switch off the tap. I believe that is what we mean by going from a consumer society to a conserver society, to go from the back end of the problem to the front end of the problem.

We have just heard a prehistoric presentation, essentially, from a back-end thinker, where we are still pursuing the notion that somewhere there is a place, somewhere there is a hole that can take our waste. Wrong question: Where to put the waste? Right question: How to unmake waste? There is no hole in the ground, there is no machine with a hole in it, there is no place for waste. As long as we pursue that, we are going backwards to the 19th century instead of forward to the 21st century.

I think Einstein said it before Greenpeace: "A clever person solves a problem; a wise person avoids it." It is not going to be an overnight thing, but I think the key thing is to move in the right direction.

Where did this front end of the problem come from? It might make us a little surprised in 1992 to think that anybody said this, but they did, in 1955: "We need things consumed, worn out, burned up, discarded, at an ever-increasing pace." That is from the Journal of Retailing, spring 1955, in America. It is not surprising with that kind of attitude that we have a trash crisis in 1992.

But do not think these people have disappeared. The production of the squeezable ketchup bottle -- and it is hard to imagine a happy life without a squeezable ketchup bottle -- is expected to grow from 300 million units in 1985 to 29 billion units in 1995. Why? Because we are all going to the supermarket saying, "Please give us squeezable ketchup bottles," or because the petrochemical industry wants to make the plastics which go into squeezable ketchup bottles and will persuade us with sophisticated advertising on TV that we really need these things?

But I think the people are catching up, and I suspect that people caught up long before some of our leaders. They have caught up to the fact that when you look into a trash bag it is not just the plastic squeezable ketchup bottle and the glass and metal we are throwing away, we are actually throwing a whole planet away. One of the reasons I get so excited about trash is that I believe for the ordinary person the trash crisis is our most concrete connection to the global crisis.


At the moment we are all part of the problem, but with the right leadership -- and I think you are getting the right leadership here -- we could all be part of the solution. There is no question that Toronto has already taken some very good first steps, and I would like to discuss some more steps which I think would alleviate some of the aspects of the landfilling at the end.

I believe that the trash crisis and global warming have the same root, namely, overconsumption. I believe that essentially we are living as if we had another planet to go to. Incineration might make sense if we had another planet to go to. Filling mines in the north of Ontario might make sense if we had another planet to go to. But this is our only planet. The resources we are talking about are finite resources.

For a long time we have been sleepwalking on this, but with the global warming and the hole in the ozone layer and some of the other huge global environmental problems, many of us are waking up, and one of the first things we recognize is that we just cannot sustain a throwaway society on a finite planet. That is another way of saying we have got to move from a consumer society to a conserver society.

In this context, landfills simply bury the evidence. Incinerators simply burn the evidence. The waste industry is making a fortune taking waste somewhere else. I think it is absolutely horrific that the state of the railway industry in this country is so bad, as it is in America, that the only thing that you can think of doing is putting double layers of trash in a train and shipping it somewhere else.

You will be told that the local community will get economic development and jobs out of doing this. Poppycock. There will be a few jobs. They will be cashing in their environment, their last card. It is the end of economic development for those communities if they get perceived as the dump, as the one place in Ontario that is prepared to accept this stuff when everybody else does not want it. That is not the beginning of economic development, that is the end of economic development. But a few individuals will make a fortune on this. The waste industry will make a fortune in putting all that trash in trains and sending it into somebody else's community.

What we have to do, I believe, is to face the real questions. The question which now comes into really sharp relief as the most overwhelming question since the Cold War seems to be dissipating is, how do we develop a sustainable society? A lot of people, as I said, are saying that. How we do get it? Nature is the master of sustainability. We have to look at the way nature handles materials. Nature recycles everything. We do not, and that is our problem.

So let's get back to the immediate issue. In the United States right now I think we are still putting 80% of our trash into landfills. This trash crisis that we are talking about is really a landfill crisis. But again I think it is important to look at the components of this crisis before we rush into trying to solve it, because often when you read documents it is all put in terms of quantity: If only we could reduce the quantity going to landfills, everything will be hunky-dory. I do not believe that is true at all.

First, there certainly is too much material going into landfills and we have a space problem. Where are we going to put it? Second, we have too much toxic material going into landfills and that gives us a leachate problem. Those toxics get into the groundwater. Third, we have too much organic material going into landfills, which breaks down and produces methane gas which contributes to global warming, a tremendous smell and of course inorganic acids which in turn compound the toxic problem because they dissolve some of the toxic metals and get it into the groundwater. Fourth, we have too much useful material going into landfills, and this is an ethical problem. We are throwing away objects, throwing away materials that our children and our grandchildren would want to use and even our local communities today would want to use.

Fifth, and finally, people do not like living near landfills. That gives us a political problem. If you put one and five together, especially in a large province like Ontario, we are running out of political space for landfills. That is the key issue, not physical space but political space. Nobody wants to live near them.

Frequently we find that our experts design solutions for other people to live with, and I think the citizens are doing a great job in persuading them that when you are the patsy, when you are the final resting place for that trash, that is when they get the resistance.

But I think there is general agreement here when people think about it: We have to reduce the quantity, the toxicity and the organic content. There is general agreement, but most of the attention focuses on quantity of the discarded material going to landfills -- that is not a dead body in the picture; that was meant to be a bulldozer. That is where the agreement ends, because there are two diametrically opposed approaches. One approach is to destroy the materials, what I call the Rambo approach to waste management; the other approach is to recover the materials. Notice I call them "discarded materials," because these materials are not waste until they are wasted. We make waste; the materials are not waste. We make waste by mixing everything together. When you mix these materials, you get waste.

If you go into the destruction business, ie, incineration, you produce ash, and notice you do not get rid of landfills. You are still left with a landfill crisis. It is as difficult in the United States to site ash landfills today as it was trash landfills yesterday, because for every three tons of waste you burn, you get one ton of ash. The catch-22 for the industry is that the better it gets with the incinerator, the more toxic the ash becomes. Fortunately you are not talking about incineration in this bill, thank goodness. What a waste of time. Even if you think it is the best thing since sliced bread, wait until you go out and try to persuade the public that it wants to live with that. You will find that you can kiss five or six years goodbye. So as practical as you may think it is from the technological point of view, from a political point of view it is not practical at all.

On the other hand, if we separate these discarded materials, we are still dealing with resources; we can recover them with reuse, with recycling, with composting. This is in there with the 3Rs. You are very familiar with these concepts. I think the word that has been really underused so far is "composting," and indeed you still get a residue. We have not got rid of landfills; we still need a landfill for the rest. You could have a long argument as to whether it would be better to live near an ash landfill or a residue landfill. I would listen very carefully to the public as to which it would prefer to live near, ash residue or the residue from a recycling and composting program. I suspect their answer will hinge greatly on how aggressive this is: Are we going to have a token blue box program or are we going to have really intensive recycling and composting?

Before you accept lightly the notion of a residue landfill better than an ash landfill, here are a few definitions of waste. Waste is a human invention; nature makes no waste. Waste is a verb, not a noun. You cannot find anything in a garbage can which is waste. You can find paper, plastic, glass, metals, food scraps; the waste is mixing it all together. It is a verb, it is action, we make it. We pay good money for the stuff in the morning, we hate it at night. We hate the politicians who do not take it away. It is resources in the wrong place. It is the visible face of inefficiency, and I am glad the minister really caught that in her statement in which she talked about the companies which, when they recognize that waste is inefficiency and make less waste, particularly less toxic waste, actually save more money and become more efficient and competitive.

Waste is the evidence that we are doing something wrong. The best place for a landfill is right in the middle of Toronto so people have to drive around it every day and see exactly what is being made here. But the best definition, I believe, comes from California from a garbage collector: Waste is a bus load of consultants going over Niagara Falls with three empty seats in it. This problem, quite frankly, is not going to be solved by high-paid consultants, big engineering consulting firms or magic machines. It is going to be solved by communities, by common sense, by creativity, by children, by making the connections between the local and global problems and putting your faith back in people.

It is happening in Ontario. I have just come from Wastewise in Halton Hills, which is an inspiration to see what people will do once they are threatened with a huge landfill proposal or a huge incinerator.

So let's look at a better way of doing it. Classify the trash into reusable objects, recyclable materials, compostables, avoidables, things we did not need to buy in the first place, toxics, and then finally we have the rest. Toxics are only about 1% or 2% in the waste stream, but I think they will probably end up costing us more than a very large chunk of the waste stream. At the moment we try to sweep them under the carpet into landfills or incinerators, but we have to pull them out and recognize the problem, and it is going to be an expensive problem to tackle.

A scenario, a schematic for how I would envisage those being tackled: The reusable objects go to a reuse and repair centre; a lot of voluntary activity there à la Wastewise. Each citizen would have one container for the compostables, one for the recyclables, one for the rest -- keep the avoidables out; that is a long-term process with education -- special containers for toxics, particularly batteries and waste oil; special collection vehicles; a toxic waste collection centre; an educational centre; part of that incorporated in the reuse and repair centre.


If you asked a high-paid consultant what to do with half a can of toxic household paint, he would tell you to call in chemical waste management. You will probably pay $30,000 a ton for people in white suits and masks to send this to Buffalo. If you ask a low-paid consultant what to do with a half a can of paint, he will tell you to paint something with it. If it is safe enough to buy, then it is safe enough to use up. If the individual cannot do it, then the community should. This is the kind of thing you should convince your community it has exhausted first, before you go to the high-tech solutions.

Composting facilities are out there, materials recovery facilities are out there. This is where we are still weak: What do you do with the rest, the residue? "We will send the residue to a cement kiln, we will send the residue to a mine, we will send the residue to an incinerator." No. I think we have to be much more careful about that. What I suggest is that we send the residue to a screening facility. You had your first level of screening at your source with the household, with the institution and so on. The second level of screening is in a facility. In other words, no garbage truck can dump garbage straight into a hole in the ground, into a landfill. It must go to this building where you have paid workers, well protected with Plexiglas screens, suction hoods, fans and so on to separate out the residue into more recyclables, more toxics and material which is designated safe to bury.

My advice to the government here is, if you want politically to site landfills, you have to go to the citizens and say: "We agree with you, it is difficult to control what comes out of a landfill. They all eventually leak. So we are going to put our effort into controlling what goes into the landfill and designate materials which cannot go into a landfill and materials which can go into a landfill and that is the only material that would go in." I think you have your best political chance of getting acceptability with that strategy. The other material that will come out of this will be low-grade compostable material: contaminated paper, diapers, kitty litter, the stuff that did not make it into the clean composting.

What we are looking at here in this scenario is two kinds of composting operations. We have source-separated, clean compostables which will produce a product you can sell and use in your local communities, etc, and you would also produce, from your screening facility, a low-grade compostable material. There are two possibilities there, the low-tech approach of windrow composting and so on to produce compost, or anaerobic digestion. The German citizens are pretty keen on the notion of tapping in there, making the methane above ground, using it as a fuel, and then only the sludge would be buried. But the object here is not to produce a product so much as to stabilize the organics above ground so they do not produce methane, smell and leachate below ground.

The stuff which is safe to bury, the non-toxic and non-biodegradable, bale it, and that is essentially it. In terms of regulation of such a facility, I believe you will have a better shot of keeping toxics out of the groundwater by regulating the balers; by the members of the community or members of the government coming in at any moment and inspecting the baling operation to see what is going into that landfill. Strip that bale. If there is waste oil in there, then that baling operator, who is well paid, will get the sack, and that good job is gone.

As I say, there is less contamination to the groundwater than the other approach of putting in plastic liners, leachate collection systems, and coming in and monitoring the groundwater, etc. Then what happens if you find that it is getting into the groundwater? "Oh, we close that cell down." It is a nightmare in terms of trying to control that thing once it is started.

In terms of the individual, there are three containers for weekly collection. We are strong on the blue box; everybody likes the blue box. The blue box has at least demonstrated that people are not a problem. If you make it convenient, they will do it, and they are doing it in droves. That has been useful, but the really important box is this compostable, to get the clean organics out. You can give people a choice. They can either compost in their backyards or they can support a community composting plot. In Zurich they have 482 community compost plots for from three households to 200 households. These are people who live in high-rise buildings, and one of the great things that has happened there is it has helped to fight the anonymity of living in a big city to compost with your neighbours.

Finally, you have a third container for the rest, and the system that has proved effective in the United States, particularly in places like Seattle, is to charge for that third container. Your garbage disposal is probably absorbed into the tax system, so people do not understand the costs involved. But you charge for this third container what it costs to screen the residue and landfill it, etc.

In Seattle, for instance, you can choose between a small container, a medium-sized container or a large container. Only the rich can be slobs, only the rich can eat off plastic. The poor have to use china, stainless steel, etc. What we are introducing here with the pay-by-bag system is a feedback loop. Nature controls its recycling with feedback loops. Our waste crisis is that we are trying to solve it without feedback loops. This will change consumption. If you go into a store and you have the choice of peanut butter in a plastic or glass container and you know the glass container can go into this container, but the plastic goes into this one, the penny will drop and people will start choosing the things they can get rid of for free, rather than the ones they have to pay for.

Another feedback loop is to put some money into these screening facilities and make them adjuncts of our technical colleges. The people who are going to design the packaging and the objects of the future should see the crap that is coming out the other end, where people paid no attention to the future, only selling to the present. We have to introduce a new ethic where you design a package or an object not only to sell to the present but to share with the future. Volvo and Volkswagen now have cars in which, I am told, all the parts are reusable or recyclable completely. That is the kind of change we need.

So there is a tremendous lesson in trash as to what things we were doing wrong in the past, and also in what I think is the most exciting thing. I have a 30-minute video tape on a community resource park called Wastewise in Halton Hills. They have not gone all the way I am talking about here, but a long way. Rita Landry is in the audience. There is her phone number, if you want to talk to her; you have probably heard from her elsewhere. Essentially, it is reuse. It is those objects; you reuse them. You use senior citizens and other people with skills to repair these. You have some chance to train the unemployed and the chance to get the seniors with the kids so that they do not become repair-illiterate, they can repair their own bicycles.

You have a demonstration of how you compost in your backyard. You have a whole education of other things to do: a waste exchange where you can take in those paints and use them for painting things you are repairing; a gigantic flea market on Saturday and Sunday; a dropoff for all the recyclables you can think of; recovering of materials and fun, fun, fun; excitement, interest and building your community. In other words, tackle two things at the same time.

You have a big city like Toronto. I just guarantee there are a lot of lonely, miserable people living in this city because they get paid well, and they survive because when they go home at night they have one thing that requires no energy whatsoever. It is called television. You can watch it just by keeping an eighth of an inch of your eyelids open, no energy at all, and the only price you have to pay in the United States is that every seven minutes you are told you are hungry, thirsty, frustrated and sick, and every seven minutes you have to eat something, drink something, make love to somebody and take a tablet. As a result, we are producing miles of junk. Why? Because we have been persuaded that happiness is just the next object we buy instead of the people we live with.

One of the things I would do if I were the czar of Toronto, which I am not, thank God, would be to break it up again. Rediscover your communities; some of them have names to them. Make sure that every single community has a community reuse and repair centre. Go to town: Use much creativity and imagination in the way you design this, not just for trash but for leisure activities and so on, and you will find that people get very excited with trash. A lot of these ideas are summarized in a little booklet called Waste Management: As If the Future Mattered. If you are interested, I will send 30 copies of the booklet to you. There is a videotape that goes with that.


Very quickly, a few words about incinceration. Obviously Ogden Martin and all those other creeps are still in the picture, still hoping against hope that the next government, which I hope will be this one -- sorry about that, I do not know anything about your policy. On the waste issue, I just hope there is a government that continues to ban incineration. But they are obviously in it, hoping against hope that they can get this law overthrown and start building incinerators again.

Before you accept that, just look at what is happening. Without going into all the dangers of the metals, the ash and the dioxins, in the United States over 100 trash incinerator proposals have been defeated outright, or put on hold, since 1985. That is a good chunk of what they wanted to build. California had 35 proposals in 1984; they have only built three. New Jersey had 22 proposals in 1984; they have only built four. Incinerators have been rejected in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Boston, Philadelphia, Austin, Texas and on and on. The question is why?

In the United States in April every major environmental organization, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Clean Water Action, etc, called for a moratorium on trash incinceration to the year 2000. Then in Ontario in April we had, "The people of Ontario need solutions, not illusions." I show this transparency all over the world now, so that people know you banned trash incineration. In Bavaria, over one million people went to their town halls in a 12-day period to try to get incineration out of waste policy in Bavaria.

I think this is interesting too. Recently, the German government announced a new strategy for packaging. They said, "If your package currently is not recycled, then it has to have a green spot on it." The citizens are told that ones with the green spot on it have to go to a special, I believe it is a pink, container. You now, they have these igloos -- they exaggerate, they have eight and nine of them sometimes in a row, glass, aluminum, paper, everything you can think of, but then there will be this extra pink container for all the containers with the green spot on them. Industry is responsible for collecting that material and recycling 80% of it. Incineration is not allowed. I find it extremely interesting that the German government is telling industry, "You do not have the easy option of burning this; you have instead to recycle it." This is a massive feedback loop with a vengeance.

There are a lot more things I could say about incineration. I am sure you will want time to ask questions, so what I am going to say is this: Even if you could make incineration safe, which I question, you would never make it sensible. It just does not make sense to spend billions of dollars perfecting the art of destroying materials that we should be sharing with the future generations. That is what we are doing: trying to perfect the art of destruction. If we got those billions of dollars to spend on the waste issue, we should try to perfect the art of recovering those materials and using them again. What we cannot recover, we have to have the courage to say to industry, "You shouldn't have made those in the first place."

I think the people are ready for some tough steps. They want to see some action. One of the things I have seen, and I am sure you have, is that for 10 years now we have overwhelmed citizens with headlines like, "Hole in the Ozone Layer Bigger Than We Thought," "Ozone Layer Thinning over the Northern Hemisphere" and "Global Warming: the Seven Hottest Years in the Last 10 years." People read this stuff and they think, "Oh, my goodness, what can I do?" We usually do not ask them to do anything. Now we are going to ask them to play a major role in one issue. I am not suggesting that the approach outlined here in the law, nor the additional aspects I have talked about with the screening facility, are going to be problem-free. They are not going to be problem-free. But to my mind, the art of decision-making is to choose the set of problems that takes us in the right direction. That is what I think this does. It is taking us in the right direction. The progress we make today is really a gift to our children. When we accept incineration or filling up mines, etc, we are really going backwards. We are not handing anything on to our children except problems.

Finally, I love this statement from Schopenhauer, which you may or may not know: "All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently attacked; third, it is accepted as being self-evident." The kind of low-tech approaches to solving trash which maximize the involvement of citizens, institutions, businesses and communities -- and make sure we have maximized that before we turn to technology and disposal -- I believe is going to be one of those self-evident truths and we are going to wonder why on earth it took so long to get around to it.

That is in a nutshell what I wanted to say, and there is a little bit of time left for questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have questions now from committee members. First, Mr Wiseman.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to thank you for your presentation. It was very good and I think it covered a lot of very important points we needed to cover. Many proponents of incineration speak of how we can gain electricity from garbage. The problem I have with that argument is that it encourages the production of electricity rather than energy efficiency and energy conservation. Could you comment on that, please?

Dr Connett: Yes, it is absolutely true. I think you are right. The moment you build a trash incinerator you are forced to feed it. The economics of incineration is that you have to optimize the use of that thing. It is totally inflexible and ties your hands for 20 years, so even when better ways of using that same material come along, economically you are trapped with the incinerator.

The energy thing is a big red herring. I am working with a project for Ontario Hydro on this very issue of how much energy. We have a consultant working for us out of Washington state and he has calculated that you can save -- and you are looking at all the materials you can recycle in the waste stream -- as much as five times as much energy from recycling and reusing those materials as you can from burning those materials. If energy is what you are interested in, you recycle, you do not burn. Of course, the other thing is that when you burn something you have to replace it, so you have really done nothing. It is business as usual and you have done nothing to alleviate the problems on global warming and those kinds of issues.

Energy is a big red herring. I do not think there are many people in Germany, for instance, who build incinerators today because of the energy issue. You build an incinerator for waste disposal, period. The energy sales slightly offset your cost.

I will give you one very concrete example. In Pinellas county, Florida, they have a huge incinerator -- 3,000 tons a day. Within about five years of it being built they are going to have to upgrade the air pollution control devices. It is going to cost $150 million to do that. They only make $10 million a year selling the energy for electricity, so they would have to run that facility for 15 years just to pay for these new air pollution devices. I think it is very clear that we are not looking at a power station here -- no way.

What is unfortunate is that the local community does seem to get a net energy gain. If you burn trash you create heat and you can do something with the energy locally. As a government I think you have to say locally, yes; but nationally, provincially or globally we have wasted energy by not reusing and recycling those materials back into the economy at the front end.

Mr McClelland: Thank you, Mr Connett, for being here. Our provincial government is considering purchasing shares, and Ontario will be helping employees purchase shares, in an operation called Algoma Steel in northern Ontario. Algoma Steel has a multiplicity of stacks that emit products as a result of combustion. I take it that you believe these stacks, like all combustible stacks in Ontario, should be required to achieve a zero discharge of contaminants. Would that be a reasonable presumption?

Dr Connett: Zero discharge is an extremely important concept, because what you are saying when you say it is a zero discharge is that it is a back-end approach, that there is a device you can put on to capture the materials. That is placing the issue at the wrong end. The only way you can get zero discharge is to change at the front end. In other words, if you do not put chlorine into a combustion system, you cannot get dioxins out. If you do not put mercury, cadmium or lead into these systems, then those metals cannot come out at all. So what we mean by zero discharge is to shift the focus of attention from the back end of the problem to the front end and see what goes into these systems.

One of the problems with the steel industry is that they are recycling cars. A lot of those cars have an enormous quantity of plastics, much of it PVC, synthetic leather, 58% chlorine; therefore, steel mills become major producers of dioxins and furans. You could take one approach, which is to put the same kind of scrubbers on steel mills that you put on incinerators, or you could take another approach and say: "Hey, you can recycle steel. We want you to recycle steel, but you have to separate the plastics from the steel before you do the recycling."


Mr McClelland: At the end of the day, though -- and I do not think anybody is arguing the theoretical and the laudable concept. I think you are quite right that the vast majority of people, if not all people, want to work towards the goal of zero discharge from an element, as you talk about it, about front-end thinking. But you have these production facilities operating, some in partnership with the government of Ontario potentially, and it seems to me that one way to achieve the objectives is to insist, as you say, in terms of anything that is operated by the government, either do it at the front end, but at the very least at the other end, at least as an interim measure.

I wonder if you have any scientific writing. I would not expect you to have it today, but a list of peer-reviewed scientific articles you might have that would discuss the measurable impact on public health if this so-called zero discharge were obtained. I do not think you would have it. You may have something, but if you could give me a list or send us a list of any kind of peer-reviewed, critiqued articles by people in the scientific community that talk about health impact and environmental impact, however we arrive at -- presumably the best way -- zero discharge.

Right now, doctor, our provincial government is operating a kiln in a place called Smithville. They use a rotary kiln to destroy PCBs. Temperatures operate at about 1200 degrees Celsius. The time the product is in the kiln is about two seconds. It is operating now in compliance with all provincial air emission standards.

My question is from a technical point of view: Is it a reasonable presumption to think that if one were to have a kiln or a process that raised it to 1700 degrees and maintained it for, say, six, seven, eight seconds, you would be lessening any health risks? Is it a fair presumption that an extension of time in a burning process, an increase of temperatures, would obtain a better result in terms of that destruction process?

Dr Connett: I think it is alluring the way you have put it, but unfortunately we have found that with incineration what is good for one thing is lousy for another. As you raise the temperature you produce more nitrogen oxides. As you raise the combustion efficiency, more chromium 3 is converted to chromium 6. As the level of chlorine increases in your waste stream, more of the chromium 6 is converted to volatile materials. We have found that as people have tried to improve these facilities on the fly, as it were, as they were operating in communities, the solution to one problem is generating another one.

I have heard the proposal for using a cement kiln to burn refuse-derived fuel. First of all, it is important to recognize that the emissions from refuse-derived fuel facilities in the United States are actually higher in certain toxics, like dioxins and furans, than the mass-burn incinerators. When you burn paper and plastics together, you have concentrated sources of chlorine and some metals, so refuse-derived fuel is not a panacea to the burning problem. As far as cement kilns are concerned, on paper they look great, but if you go to towns which have cement kilns they do not work properly all the time. The regulations, I do not think, are adequate in the United States. I am not sure about the Canadian regulations. I have been to several communities that have these facilities and they are extremely concerned. As you probably know, there are some communities in the United States that burn hazardous waste in cement kilns, and it has not been a satisfactory experience in places like Ama, Louisiana, and in Aquadale, North Carolina, and near Dallas, Texas. So I think we have to be extremely careful in assuming there is a magic machine out there.

Mr McClelland: Are you familiar with the environmental assessment process in the province of Ontario? Have you a passing familiarity with it, in any event?

Dr Connett: No, I do not have a great deal of familiarity, but what I do know about it --

Mr McClelland: May I put it in more general terms, then? In terms of an adequately funded public process for citizens' groups and whomever, affected parties, do you feel that is a valuable tool to arrive at debunking many myths, arriving at a process of changing mindsets, changing the way we think, changing the approaches we take -- in short, looking at the best environmental solutions available for a problem and working in terms of reconditioning our mindset, if you will? Do you think a fully public, fully open, without-prejudice public hearing is a valuable approach to obtaining those results?

Dr Connett: Again, it is alluring, as you have put it. I think the distinct advantage that Canada has over the United States in public hearing processes is that you do fund intervenors, if someone gets intervenor status. I think that is excellent.

The public hearing process in the United States is, I think, a placation to democracy. Usually the decision is already made. You let people spout off for five minutes and then you go and do what you were going to do anyway. There is a lot of time spent on it. I think the whole process could be improved greatly. Again, however, the public process is also clumsy in addressing the very important questions. Often the agencies involved are asking questions like, "Does it meet our regulations?" -- we can't ask larger questions -- or, as you said, "Is it safe?"

I think it is very bad sometimes at addressing the very big questions, the kinds of big questions the minister is addressing here. She is going beyond, "Is it safe?" It is not a question of whether, for instance, it is safe to put that stuff in that mine. Is it sensible? Is it ethical? Is this the leadership that the people want from a government? I think when the government has the boldness and the courage to carve out a bold new philosophy which says, "We want to move from a consumer society to a conserver society, and we don't think incineration and exporting waste fits into that philosophy," that is more important than the public hearings side that we have. If you do not like the government, vote them out, but that is the role it has taken. Within the guidelines they establish, you have the public hearings on the screening facilities, whatever they come up with in that, but I think you have to allow the government to come up with a broad policy to address the big questions before you get sidetracked with some of the little questions.

Mr McClelland: It seems to me, though, that within those broad policy statements, surely it would be appropriate -- again, maybe I should not prejudice the question by putting it in that sense. But I hope you would think it appropriate that an opportunity be given for the public to at least hear and participate in data that are put forward, evaluations of those data, cross-examination, if you will, on a peer-to-peer basis in terms of people with scientific expertise being able to make their own judgements, to sit back with an independent group of people to evaluate the various data that are put forward.

Certainly I think I am correct in saying that within the scientific community there would be a divergence of views and a range of views in terms of various options. Again, within that broad framework, is it not reasonable to use as a very important vehicle, when you talk in terms of public participation and community participation, open and full hearings, looking at things objectively and using it as a tool for education?

The Chair: Your time is up, Mr McClelland. I am going to have to put that as notice of a question on the record and move to Mr Cousens.

Mr Cousens: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am pleased to see Dr Connett in person. I have a copy of the tape that has been circulated about you. For the record, I would appreciate it if you would give us your academic achievements and where you received them, please.

Dr Connett: I got my first degree, in natural sciences, at Cambridge University in England. I got my PhD in chemistry at Dartmouth College. My field was the interaction of metals with biological systems.

Since that time, my focus of interest has been on waste management, particularly the problems of incineration and the buildup of dioxins in the food chains. With a colleague, Tom Webster, I have attended the last seven international symposia on dioxins. We have presented papers on these issues at the last six. Five of those have since been published in leading journals on environmental toxicology and chemistry.

As far as the videotape that you mentioned is concerned, I think it is important that people know that the person who produced that videotape is actually trying to site an ash landfill in a little town called Angelica in New York state, so this man has a very vested interest in destroying my credibility. The person who made the tape was paid, I assume, quite a large amount of money to do that. I find it absolutely incredible that in a tape devoted to me for 45 minutes -- I guess I should be flattered -- the person who made it did not feel he had to interview me and did not feel he had to interview anybody in our county who was against the incinerator or even neutral on the incinerator.

What you see is very much a selected view of the issue in our county from people whose toes we trod on, because they wanted the incinerator. We had a five-and-a-half-year battle. We stopped the incinerator. I think most people today would probably be pleased that we stopped the incinerator. Where they went to sources outside the county, they went to people who would clearly have a vested interest, people like Gordon Boyd, a consultant who works for Browning-Ferris Industries and other waste industry. So it is hardly an objective document. But I have offered to debate the person who sent the videotape to you.


Mr Cousens: No, that is fine. I welcome that. I have it and I will make it available for public show.

Do you have any ideas on how the province can deal with the accumulation of recycled materials, some kind of economic method of handling them? What we are doing is stockpiling recycled goods. That becomes a major worry for me and many of us who want to promote the 3Rs and are doing our best. The blue boxes are filled, yet where is it going? If it is going back into landfill sites, which is starting to be the worry -- more people are beginning to believe that the recycled goods are ending up in large terminals out at the airport and many other parts are going into landfill. What we really need to do is come back to the issue and find ways in which we can use the recycled goods effectively and economically so that we have a way of putting an economic measure on that part of the 3Rs.

Dr Connett: I think you are absolutely right. I think that is critical. At the same time, people are clearly demonstrating that they are not the problem, that they will separate these materials for us. We have to develop the government incentives to get those industries geared up to handling those materials. I am happy to see that you are, I think, bringing three paper plants on line in Canada and are siting them near urban centres, not near a forest, which suggests to me that they are getting geared up to receive the recycled paper.

I think the key thing is that we should recognize that there are going to be some ups and downs with certain markets -- not all markets, but some markets.

Mr Cousens: Do you have any specific ideas, though, on how we can do it? The problem we have is that we are over time.

Dr Connett: I think it is important, whenever you separate a material, to get as much flexibility and as many end uses for it as you possibly can. If it is paper, for instance, you might want to back up newspaper with cattle bedding and composting and anaerobic digestion so you are not wholly dependent on the paper industry taking that paper back. I would like to see the paper industry getting involved in composting so that it can take some of that compost, perhaps the lower-grade compost, back to the forests, and things like that. I think you need to look at each material and see as many uses for it as possible and play it so you are not trapped by one market.

Mr Cousens: If there is any document that you could refer us to, it happens to be a subject of importance. The ideas you present we have heard of, but we are looking for more. I think it is a critical issue. We have to somehow balance off our environmental goals and objectives with some of the economic things. They can mesh. It is just how we as a smart society can make them do so.

I want to let you know that I do not in any way want to be unkind to you. You come as a guest and make your presentation. When we talk about the offence, what happens is that when anyone is in the world doing what they believe, they can come under attack. We happen to believe that this government is quite under attack because it does not necessarily listen to people either. So it is a tough world out there.

Dr Connett: I have no problem with people attacking me, but let's attack on the issue, let's discuss the issue. I do not think the videotape or these newspaper articles really address the issue but are designed so that you would not listen to me today, so you would say, "Forget this guy."

Mr Cousens: No, I am delighted you have come. Thank you.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, doctor. I enjoyed your presentation very much. I learned a great deal. I think you have given us as a government something to think about. Mr Cousens has alluded to these difficult times. I assure you that it may be a difficult time to be government but there is an excitement to problem-solving and showing leadership to get around and resolve these problems we are dogged with.

You talked briefly about emission problems around cement kilns and concerns about the kinds of contaminants that come out of those kilns. We had a representation from the industry. They wanted to use refuse-derived fuel after an aggressive 3Rs policy. They said that only the residue, the leftover, would be burned in their incinerator. What is your experience of these burn facilities? Can they operate on post-3R residual waste?

Dr Connett: No, I do not think so. As soon as you opt for destruction you have lost. You are losing the battle. The trouble is that once you commit yourself to that kind of thing it is very difficult to be weaned off it again. It is easy but it is wrong. As I have said before, there are some very high emissions of dioxins from refuse-derived fuel plants. The Occidental plant in New York state has the highest dioxin emissions of any incinerator in New York state. Detroit has very high dioxin emissions. That is another refuse-derived fuel facility.

Second, I have videotapes from citizens of thick black smoke coming out of the cement kiln types of operations. Actually it was not a cement kiln. It was a lightweight building aggregate with the same principle: rotary kiln, high temperatures, long resonance times and so on. I think the problem is the difference between theory and practice and the limited amount of data we get from these facilities.

I do not know if this is true, but often they have this cute statement about, "We capture the fly ash and then we recycle it back into the kiln." That is where basic chemical principles are rather useful, because all that means is that your toxic metals, which can never be destroyed, are going to end up in one of two places, either in the air or in the concrete, in the cement, if that is what they are going to do. In other words, you go to great lengths capturing these things and then completely pull the rug from under your strategy by recycling them back into the kiln. That is the first lesson in chemistry: You cannot destroy metals.

That is why I think the incinerator industry is keen to make these videotapes, because they would like the citizens to believe that if only you had a PhD in chemistry or were a professional engineer, you would realize that they were clever and these people were stupid. In actual fact, you need only these very basic lessons in chemistry to realize that this suggestion makes absolutely no sense at all.

If you recycle the metals back into the cement, what do we do with the buildings we build with that cement when they are brought down 100 years from now? Where does it go to? We already have in certain cities in the United States incidences of yuppie lead poisoning, where wealthy parents go back into the inner city, sand down the paint work and immediately get lead into the lungs of their children. That is a problem that was generated 40 or 50 years ago, but the children are now experiencing it. The same kind of thing could happen if we tolerated allowing these metals to go into our concrete.

Mrs Mathyssen: I am glad you mentioned that, because that was precisely the question raised by my colleague regarding these residual toxins and the fact that they were in the cement. The response was that the cement makes them stable and safe and that you need not worry about that.

Dr Connett: The other thing I would say is: Here is this object. I cannot reuse it. I cannot recycle it. Someone comes along and says, "Oh, I can burn it in a cement kiln for you." That is the wrong thing. If you cannot reuse it, you cannot recycle it, you cannot compost it, you should not have made it. If you do not know what to do with the mercury in that battery, you should not have put mercury in that battery. We have allowed our manufacturers to run roughshod over us in terms of the cost that they externalize to the community. All this trash is essentially cost, much of it that should have been borne by industry in the first place. What you have done is to bite the bullet and begin to focus back on the people who make this trash. Ultimately that is where it is going to go to. But we are not going to focus the attention if you believe in these magic machines out there that can pretend we are making electricity instead of getting rid of waste.

Mr Lessard: I thoroughly enjoyed your presentation. It was very environmentally friendly, not only the content but the presentation, because you used slides and did not have a big pile of paper to pass out to us. The last presenter gave us this book, printing on one side of the page with a plastic binding, and this pile and this pile here. You did not do that. I thank you for not doing that.

You made some reference to consumer choices in packaging and the squeezable ketchup bottle. What might we as a government be able to do? You addressed one, making us pay per piece of garbage we throw out. Is there anything else we can do to try and ensure that consumers do have those choices available to them to make the most environmentally sensible choice? We are going to have to counter the argument from manufacturers who say: "Look, people bought a billion of these types of containers. Therefore, they must want them. Why should you tell them they don't?"

The Chair: There is just one minute left for the presentation. I would appreciate it if you could sum up. If you are unable to answer Mr Lessard's question, you can do so in writing.

Dr Connett: Okay, thanks. I think there are other things to do. I would look very carefully at what Germany has done with the packaging. I would look very carefully at what Wisconsin has done. I think a lot more could be done in terms of designating what must not go into landfills and cut off these sloppy solutions at the end.

In the 35 or 36 seconds I have left I thank you very much for listening to me and hearing this other side. I am always much more encouraged talking in Canada than I am in the United States. I think you have better processes here to discuss these kinds of issues.

I end up with three things: To the citizens, do not let the experts take your common sense away; to the politicians, put your faith back in people, and to the activists among you, have fun. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation before the committee today. I think I speak on behalf of all the committee. Both presentations this morning were anything but boring. They were extremely informative and, I am sure, helpful to the committee in its deliberations. If there is any additional information you think would be helpful to the committee, please feel free to correspond with us in writing over the course of our deliberations.

The committee recessed at 1213.


The committee resumed at 1401.


The Chair: The standing committee on social development is now in session. We are examining Bill 143, the Waste Management Act. We are in the course of public hearings and our next representation is from the regional municipality of York. Welcome, Mr Chairman. I ask that you begin your presentation by introducing your delegation. You have one hour for your presentation. We ask that you leave as much time as possible for questions from committee members, and if you wish, you can request a few minutes in time for summation at the end. Please begin your presentation now.

Mr King: Is it the practice that I may remain seated?

The Chair: Please. In fact we would prefer if you would remain seated and speak right into the microphone. Hansard will record everything you have to say. You do not have to worry about it at all and I will tell you if there is a problem.

Mr King: I will take the opportunity to introduce our delegation. Our chief administrative officer of the region of York is Mr Bob Forhan and Mr Ian Blue is representing the region of York in this matter. There are many members of the respective area municipality councils here as well as regional councillors: Mayor Lorna Jackson from the city of Vaughan; Mayor William Bell from the town of Richmond Hill, and Mayor Jim Mortson from the town of East Gwillimbury. We have councillors for the town of East Gwillimbury -- Paul Mainprize, Frank Kelly, Jack Hauseman -- Jim Morning and Bob Voorberg from the township of King; Steve Bellerby and Bob Ancheril from the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, and Peter Meffe from the city of Vaughan, as well as the administrative staff from the city of Vaughan. I am sure they will be introduced later. I thank the individuals for coming on this somewhat inclement winter day. We thank you for the opportunity. We are very concerned about Bill 143.

The region of York requests this committee to amend Bill 143 to require the Interim Waste Authority Ltd to be fully subject to the Environmental Assessment Act and to prevent the confiscation of the power of elected officials by part III of the bill.

Bill 143 in its present form should be unacceptable to the people of Ontario. It is based on an untrue "sky is falling" premise and offers a solution to this non-crisis that is anti-civil liberties, anti-environmental, anti-business, anti-scientific and anti-democratic.

The bill is fundamentally unfair to York region. The bill requires the Interim Waste Authority to find a landfill site in York region or Metro for York region and Metro garbage for the next 20 years. It does not take much wit to see that this site will be in York region and not in Metro. As far as Metro citizens are concerned, a garbage dump in York region is out of sight, out of mind and therefore defeats Mrs Grier's stated purpose. Keswick, for example, is to most Metro citizens as far out of sight as Kirkland Lake. How then does this requirement of a landfill in York region promote the conserver society Mrs Grier spoke of on Monday? It does not.

Why should York region alone be responsible, along with Metro, for dealing with Metro's wastes? Why, especially when the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act empowers Metro to find facilities to treat its wastes anywhere in the province? Why should York region alone be responsible for Metro's garbage when Durham and Peel must only provide facilities for their own waste? What has York region done to incur the NDP's wrath in this way?

Citizens of Metro create the garbage that Bill 143 requires York region alone to take. Metro citizens also make goods, provide services, pay taxes, dividends and salaries, and through these contributions make a better life for all Ontario citizens. All Ontario citizens benefit from what goes on in Metro. No one would suggest that York region should have all the provincial income and business taxes paid by Metro residents, that the provincial government that resides in Metro and creates garbage should devise programs that benefit only York region, or that goods manufactured in Metro should be exported only to York region. Why then should Ontario residents outside Metro and York region have no responsibility to assist York region in solving Metro's garbage problem?

York region believes that Bill 143 must be amended to enable the Interim Waste Authority to find a site anywhere Metropolitan Toronto could find a site; in other words, in any place in Ontario. Alternatively IWA should be empowered to find a site for Metro's garbage anywhere in the GTA, not in York region alone. A landfill in York region is, from Metro residents' point of view, as much out of sight, out of mind as a landfill anywhere else in Ontario.

I now ask Mr Ian Blue from our legal counsel to present our detailed concerns about the bill.

Mr Blue: The chairman's first point was that there is no real problem and we have called this part the "Sky is Not Falling." The Metro garbage problem is a good example of a government that covets legal powers necessary to control people's lives, creating a situation to justify taking these powers when the situation is not real. There is no unsolvable Metro garbage crisis that justifies the restrictive powers in Bill 143. There is only a continuing need to find long-term solutions for Metro's garbage, but this need did not constitute a crisis before the NDP was elected and it certainly does not constitute a crisis now. This need does not require or justify this anti-environmental bill.

Today, remaining disposal capacities at Keele Valley and Brock West are much greater than estimated when the NDP was elected. Today, the need for new landfills is much farther away in time than when Bill 143 was introduced. When Bill 143 was introduced, the Keele Valley landfill was expected to be full in 1995. Mr R. G. Ferguson of Metro, in his latest report, says that Keele Valley may only become full in 1999 and Brock West only in 1996. Mrs Grier herself, in the material she filed with this committee, admitted that remaining disposal capacities at these sites "now appear to be greater than we expected."

The Britannia Road situation by itself does not justify this anti-environmental bill. Garbage now going to Britannia can, after this site is full, easily be diverted to Keele Valley or to the new Halton landfill site, or for that matter to other destinations like Niagara Waste Systems in St Catharines. It can be diverted there for at least the time necessary for new long-term sites to be found using the current and pro-environmental law, the Environmental Assessment Act.

I put it to you that four to six years is plenty of time for the minister, for the Interim Waste Authority and for the government to find new long-term sites under the Environmental Assessment Act. If the minister and the Environmental Assessment Board and their cadres of consultants and advisers cannot work within these time limits, then the minister, simply put, has lost control of her ministry. This bill is not necessary because of time.

The sky is not falling; there is no crisis situation, and there is nothing to justify stampeding the people of Ontario into the trap of granting permanent restrictive powers to this NDP government, which is what Bill 143 will do.


The chairman's second point was that this bill is anti-civil liberties. Let me state why. Make no mistake about it: The powers in Bill 143 are new restrictive powers designed to control the lives of Ontario citizens. By simple strokes of the pen, Bill 143 creates devices that are alien to Ontario citizens in order to achieve this control. For example, you have heard this, but it creates government officials who can enter, who can inspect, who can search your property and seize things on private property and question persons without a warrant. It contains tough enforcement provisions in case someone does not want to cooperate. This is all extremely anti-civil liberties.

If enacted, Bill 143 is going to eliminate these legal rights: the legal right to refuse to cooperate with public officials who want to take your land, the legal right to remain silent against questions of public officials, the legal right to require a public body to justify an undertaking that will affect the environment before an independent and impartial tribunal, and the legal right to require a public body to consider alternatives to and alternatives methods of carrying out an undertaking that affects the environment. It takes away the legal right to have government actions that affect a citizen's personal and property rights authorized by clear and specific statutory provisions. It takes away the legal rights of citizens and municipalities under several statutes. It takes away the legal rights of citizens of York region under its agreement with Metro.

This bill is totalitarian. It carries ideals to absurd lengths at the cost of common sense, of our liberties and of the environment. It is easy for a government to give itself emergency powers and to take away the rights of citizens. It is much more challenging to find the environmentally best solution for Metro's garbage and Bill 143 does not meet this challenge.

York believes that a better solution than Bill 143 is to make the Environmental Assessment Act process apply to the Interim Waste Authority and to make that process work, because that process can work and work well if managed competently. Ontario citizens deserve no less.

The chairman's next point was that the bill was anti-environmental. On Monday, Mrs Grier stated that the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee's exemption of the Brampton and Whitevale proposed interim sites from the Environmental Assessment Act was not acceptable to the NDP in opposition. Now she proposes to do herself what in opposition she condemned. Bill 143, baldly put, exempts the Interim Waste Authority from the main features of the Environmental Assessment Act and places the Interim Waste Authority above the law.

Residents and politicians in Halton, Niagara, Oxford and Lambton should take warning. They and their children are not off the landfill hook if this bill becomes law, and citizens elsewhere in Ontario ought to worry too. This bill provides at best -- assuming the minister's estimates are correct, and many people disagree that they are -- a 20-year solution. Before then, the Interim Waste Authority and its police will be looking in their backyards. Then, only these restrictive powers and not the Environmental Assessment Act will be used against them. They will have lost their right to the Environmental Assessment Act for ever if they, as citizens outside the GTA, do not oppose the bill and tell their MPPs that they oppose it. This bill is a gravely dangerous precedent because no subsequent government, once it is in power, will be able to resist it. They will not be able to resist replicating these powers, because it makes things far too easy for government to trample on people's rights.

Why does the bill destroy the Environmental Assessment Act? Contrary to the Environmental Assessment Act, the bill excludes consideration of the alternatives to landfill of both incineration and export from the GTA. Simply put, this is pure nonsense that has no credible scientific evidence to support it. The region is strongly suggesting that incineration be evaluated as an alternative means of solving the garbage problem, and I will say more about the alternatives in a minute.

Second, contrary to the Environmental Assessment Act, the bill requires that no alternatives to landfill other than the 3Rs be considered by the IWA. But this is nonsense. The IWA must accept as accurate, as gospel, the minister's 3Rs forecast, and the forecast will not be subject to any critical testing in public. Anyone who has examined estimates of garbage quantities knows how totally judgemental they are and that they need to be tested in public to be credible.

The 3Rs are no alternative to landfilling. Any waste that is 3R-ed will have been removed from waste needing to be landfilled. Take 100 tonnes of raw garbage and assume 50% is 3R-ed -- that is the minister's objective. That still leaves 50 tonnes that need to be landfilled. The 3Rs are not an alternative for that 50 tonnes that need to be landfilled. In fact, for all waste that needs to be landfilled, the 3Rs are no alternative at all. This bill does not allow any alternative to be assessed.

Third, the Environmental Assessment Act requires that alternative methods of carrying out an undertaking be evaluated. Alternative methods would include, say, one landfill for the GTA. It could be either within or outside the GTA. It might include more than one landfill in any of the named regional municipalities. It could be any combination of these options. There could be landfills of different sizes. Quite apart from just landfills, there could be an alternative method consisting of a system of 3Rs, composting, energy recovery and landfilling of residues and waste otherwise not manageable. These alternatives, for no good scientific reason, are expressly excluded by Bill 143. Why?

Finally, a process requiring less than full compliance with the Environmental Assessment Act, by definition, prevents finding the environmentally best solution to the Metro garbage situation. That is because the Environmental Assessment Act provides for best solutions. This Bill 143 process is one that, by definition is something less than wise management of the Ontario environment.

This is more than a point of logic. It is a point of cardinal importance to the health, safety, economy and society of the 40% of the population of Ontario who live in the GTA. The only advantage of Bill 143 is expedience. Mrs Grier does not argue that Bill 143's solution to Metro's garbage is the one that best protects the health, safety, property and communities of the people of Ontario. York believes this failure is a fundamental deficiency in the bill that the people and the Legislature of Ontario should reject.

Bill 143 is anti-environmental because it mocks the belief of all environmentally minded persons in Ontario that the Environmental Assessment Act provides optimal solutions to environmental problems, whether or not those solutions happen to be fashionable at the time. The Environmental Assessment Act provides a scientific, not a political solution. It deals with facts, realities and rights, and it settles conflicting interests fairly. Bill 143 shows incredible ignorance of that reality.

I want to deal next with the anti-business and anti-scientific point. Bill 143 expressly excludes, as we all know, incineration and export from the GTA as possible solutions to Metro's garbage problem. The incineration option excludes consideration of several private corporations that would like to establish modern, state-of-the-art incinerators in the GTA. These would provide high-technology jobs, design jobs, engineering jobs etc. They would provide construction and employment, capital investment and lots of permanent jobs in the GTA. They would also provide spinoff jobs and employment. The NDP exclusion of incinerators from Bill 143 precludes the possibility of this economic activity and benefit and is therefore hostile to business.

Modern garbage incinerators are used all over the world to reduce garbage volume. They are even used in social democracies like Sweden, France, Denmark and Finland. Modern incinerators destroy 99.999% of PCB, dioxin and furan compounds in domestic wastes. Landfills destroy none. Incineration also extends landfill life by at least 10 times. Incineration does not discourage the 3Rs because only what cannot be 3R-ed is incinerated. Modern incinerators can be sized and priced to meet any forecast of garbage quantity, even the minister's. Modern incinerators do not pollute the atmosphere and can be operated well within all legal air emission limits and health risk limits. That stands in contrast to landfills which just put raw, untreated garbage in a hole in the ground. All Mrs Grier's assertions about incineration have effective scientific and engineering responses.


The export from the GTA option is an option that would also create business activity and investment to protect the environment. Transportation by rail is safe and environmentally sound. It provides new options that may be more hydrogeologically suitable, that are not in an urban shadow area and that provide socioeconomic benefits to the host community. Indeed, sites outside the GTA may well be superior in every respect to those within.

Bill 143 is anti-scientific because its cement-minded solution, three garbage landfills in the middle of the most populated area of Canada -- the GTA -- makes no scientific sense. Bill 143 will put untreated garbage, raw garbage into holes in the ground near millions of people. Why must landfills or the landfill-alone solution be in the most populous region of Ontario where adverse environmental effects are greatest? Why can this government not allow alternatives that will probably lead to an environmentally better solution to be evaluated as the law requires? The landfill-only solution makes Ontario look bad in the eyes of the world because it makes Ontario look backward. Foreign business is watching.

What is also anti-business and anti-scientific is Mrs Grier's refusal to debate the incineration and export alternatives in public. She excludes them from consideration by an independent and impartial Environmental Assessment Board. If her views have merit, this merit will be borne out in the board's decision. But why is she afraid of having her views tested by knowledgeable persons? Is she embracing an "ignorance is strength" philosophy? York believes she is.

Part III of Bill 143 is anti-democratic because it is a theft of the authority of elected municipal officials by an appointed official of the state. Part III is also anti-democratic because it puts the actions of this official above the law, above the Environmental Assessment Act, the Planning Act, the Regional Municipality of York Act and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, and above the agreement between York and Metro covering the Keele Valley landfill.

This confiscation of authority is without assuming any corresponding political or financial responsibility. The minister or the director can say to the regional government, "You do what I say, you pay for it and you take the political heat for it in your region." This power grab was not negotiated in advance and no fair debate about this responsibility has taken place between the two levels of government. Let's be fair and have some real public consultation about this idea.

What exactly is wrong with following the Environmental Assessment Act and obeying the other laws about landfill expansions anyway? Has Mrs Grier lost patience with citizens expressing their views to an independent and impartial tribunal? Has she lost patience with objective, independent review of landfill expansions, public consultation, intervenor funding or thoughtful decision-making? Why in the GTA, where landfills seem to cause most concern because of the concentration of population, does the government want to avoid the EAA when, after all, the Environmental Assessment Act is designed to ensure that these concerns are considered, taken into account and mitigated? Again, York says time is not a problem if the Environmental Assessment Act process is competently managed, which the minister can ensure if she wants to.

Finally municipal politicians can be trusted to provide solutions for their own garbage as the Regional Municipalities Act empowers them and requires them to do now. They have done so in the past. State officials, police, legal fictions and the sidestepping of existing laws, such as is found in Bill 143, are not required.

By the way, York region supports section 19 in its present form if the bill becomes law. It does not want it removed.

Mr King: York region requests amendments to achieve the following objectives: York region alone should not be responsible for Metro's garbage. The Interim Waste Authority's proposals should be subject to a full environmental assessment; there is time for this process if the minister manages it properly. The minister and director should not grab regional authority; instead, the minister should work with the GTA chairpersons to find interim solutions in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. The disagreeable features of the bill that York region has described should be removed.

We have handed out copies of this presentation. We have also handed out detailed commentary and recommendations about Bill 143 that are far more extensive than the points we have made this afternoon. We have also handed out the text of the amendments York region is asking for. Again, we thank you for the opportunity of presenting our position.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I have had a request from the parliamentary assistant to say a few words.

Mr O'Connor: The question of power of inspection keeps coming up. You brought it up on page 4 of your brief. To answer that question about the inspectors within other provincial acts and whatnot, I would like to have Jan Rush, the chair of the Interim Waste Authority, address that power of inspection, because that is something that has been brought up many times and I think we would like to get some clarification on the record for the chair and his fellow council members here today.

Ms Rush: We have had a request for a written answer and that will be forthcoming as well.

Very briefly, I can point out that the powers that are contained in this bill are consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They have been reviewed by the Ministry of the Attorney General lawyers and they concur with that. The power to enter property is contained in many provincial statutes and the powers contained in those statutes refer to the specific mandate of the bill, as does this one. I can also say that this particular set of provisions provides more safeguards and protection for property owners than some of the other bills and we are convinced they are consistent with the charter.

The Chair: Questions from the committee members.

Mr Cousens: As the member for Markham, I welcome the municipalities and the municipality of York, Mr King and his staff. It was really an excellent presentation. First, I would just say on behalf of the people of York region that I am very impressed with the presentation you have given.

I value your guidance and help. The whole debate having started on October 24 and then continuing during the municipal elections, I was very worried there might not be a chance for the region to speak on this issue. The fact you have come as prepared as you are with what I would say is the strongest statement I have ever heard from Mr King and his council leads me to believe there is an issue here that really needs to be addressed, and I appreciate the way in which you have clearly set down your terms of reference.

I would like to ask you if you have any comment on one statement that was made by the minister in her opening statements. When Mrs Grier on Monday of this week came to our public hearings, she made this statement. I will read the paragraph to give you the context:

"With respect to the question of hearings regarding the extension of capacity at the Britannia Road and Keele Valley landfill sites, let me clarify our position. Unfortunately, the fact that Britannia Road landfill site reaches capacity next June makes a hearing on the extension there impossible. The legislation does not preclude a hearing for the Keele Valley extension and, if there is time, there will be a hearing."

I am having some trouble with that by virtue of the statements that were made prior to the election of September 6, 1990, by Mr Rae when he said there would be a full environmental assessment. I would like you to comment on the assurances the region had for an environmental assessment. Now with the possibility that the minister is saying, "If there is time, there will be a hearing," could you give me your explanation and comments on that?

Mr King: Our concern is not as great as it relates to the interim capacity that may be generated. Certainly the region of York holds the position right at the moment that any expansion to Keele Valley must be confronted with a full environmental assessment. We believe, and it was in our submission this afternoon, that there is absolutely time to carry out that particular assessment because of the fact that the landfill, as it relates to Keele Valley, will not be filled to capacity as early as was expected. If the minister wishes to include that in the amended amendments, then certainly we would be most supportive of that. I think we can be not only supportive; we are demanding that it also be included as it relates to any expansion to Keele Valley.

But our greater thrust, as of this afternoon, and the position of the region of York, is that anything related to the disposal of waste should have the same opportunity as any other waste disposal facility that has been applied for in recent years or will in the future. I have to state again that I cannot understand how the minister can say, "We are opposed to exporting garbage," when in fact Bill 143 is an export bill for Metropolitan Toronto to export to the region of York.


Mr Cousens: What has York region done to be the beneficiary of all Metro's garbage?

Mr King: Mr Cousens, I think York region has done its share, and certainly the residents of the community of Maple, within the city of Vaughan, over the last eight years, from 1984 to 1992, in accepting that the waste be hauled there. We agreed to it at that point. We did not expect, though, that we would be the only importer in the world of Metro waste. We have certainly done our share. We are willing to cooperate, but we want the same opportunity as everyone else. Give us the opportunity to make our case known and also give us the opportunity to search for the best possible location for any waste in the province.

Mr Forhan: I would like to state that the council's position, and we had it with SWISC, was that we would be willing to take interim waste from Metro under an EPA. Under the EPA it was an interim measure because it was felt that Keele Valley would be filled around 1994 or 1995. What has happened is that council has changed that position and wants a full EA on Keele Valley. Basically what has happened is that with the interim measures that have been taken on reduction, Metro figures show that Keele Valley will probably last, under the existing relationship, to 1999. With the extension of the site and the capability of the site to be extended landfill, there is no need for this hurry-up legislation without a full environmental assessment. Over the year 1990-91, I think Metro's tonnage at that particular site dropped from 3.2 million to 2.2 million tonnes.

Ms Haeck: I must admit that at times I have had to contain myself rather seriously with this presentation, gentlemen. I had a chance to look across the room and realized that most of the opposition members represent elements of the GTA and most of the people on this side represent the 60% of the population, as you aptly describe it, who live outside the GTA. Representing part of the city of St Catharines, which is mentioned in your brief, I have to say that I know an awful lot of people of St Catharines who really do not want your waste and are quite happy that with this bill, which is going to say you get to keep it, you have to actually come up with a method of dealing with it. We already have a number of problems ourselves and have to come up with a method of dealing with it ourselves, and we are quite happy to do that.

I also hasten to add that the minister would probably agree with some elements of what Mr Blue has said. He hopes the long-term landfills will be operating in time to deal with the fact that Keele Valley capacity may be exhausted, but there may be a risk that the long-term sites will not be not available. Maybe you could comment on what planning should take place if this is not a possibility.

Mr Blue: I would be happy to do that. You have to remember that the minister's schedule for the IWA was prepared with the assistance of three teams of paid consultants, who charge by the hour, and you have to remember that if you ask consultants like that how long something will take, they will tell you, and it is going to take a long time.

Let's just go through the steps in the process as it is practised by the ministry, and this has evolved over several years. A proponent like IWA prepares an environmental assessment, and it is prepared with the best of consultants. The ministry says, "File a draft copy," and then a year later it will mail it back with comments. That is before you file it formally. Then you file it formally. The ministry's official position is that the government review takes six months. In fact it takes much longer than that for a major project. Then it has to go to a hearing and you have the Environmental Assessment Board or joint boards that try to manage the process, and that is always done quite efficiently. The boards are very good. What is more, the boards are learning.

York is saying it takes a little bit of management competence -- the minister probably has it and probably some of her executives do -- simply to say that instead of doing it that way, it must be done by a certain date. You cannot tell me that with the resources the IWA has, it cannot prepare an environmental assessment of a garbage dump and have it ready to go to a hearing in less than three or four years. That is nonsense. That is a bill of goods that is going to cost the province a lot of money.

This process under this act that IWA is going to follow with the exclusion is taking an incredible amount of time. It is taking more time than most environmental assessments I have seen, and I have seen a few. It is total nonsense for the minister to suggest that a full environmental assessment, considering all the options designed to come up with an environmentally best solution for all of Ontario -- I always thought this Legislature represented all of Ontario and not just the 60% who live outside the GTA. It can be done, in my opinion, from start to finish in about two to two and a half years.

Ms Haeck: If I may say so, the riding that is immediately to the west of me has the privilege of having visited upon it a creation of the earlier Tory government that is called the Ontario Waste Management Corp, which is going to get virtually all of Ontario's toxic waste -- at least that is what was described -- and that process has been going on for over 10 years. I would suggest also that in the time frame this process has taken with regard to the OWMC, I am not sure the GTA has 10-plus years to wait to deal with the garbage crisis.

Mr Blue: That example of course is not a fair one. The OWMC case started from scratch in 1981 with no previous work. The GTA is starting with the years of work of SWISC and all the work SWISC has done plus the work OWMC has done. In fact, the OWMC is a pretty good example. Its environmental assessment was finally submitted, I think, in November 1988, about three years ago, and the hearing is almost done. It shows the Environmental Assessment Act can work.

Ms Haeck: The local people have some very strong concerns, I would like to add.

Mr McClelland: Gentlemen, thank you for being here. You will hear from time to time that Bill 143 is a good bill, that it is pro-environment. I submit to you that there are elements of it that are, but I would also say that there are sufficient elements of Bill 143 that do not justify the pro-environment portions. I speak specifically of part IV.

Much of that is laudable. I think nobody around this table would disagree with the goals and objectives set out in terms of reducing and managing and controlling garbage. Nobody takes issue with that. But what we are dealing with here is a situation where the government is saying: "Because there are parts of it that are good, of necessity all of it must be good. Therefore, we're going to push it ahead and we don't want to listen, because we know best." I think it is important that you understand, as you come here today, that you are dealing with a situation with a government that is saying: "We don't want to be scientific because we know best. We don't want to necessarily be environmentally sound or friendly, because, again, we know best."


You, Mr Blue, have pointed out that Bill 143 does not allow full process. It is terribly inconsistent. You have said that Bill 143 is not scientifically justifiable, nor is it environmentally justifiable. You would not say, but I will say that by extension it does not take a great deal of imagination to draw the thread and say that the government in its mindset is looking backwards, that it is not prepared to look forward or to be creative. It is not prepared to look at all options, to withstand scrutiny and objective debate on issues that are put forth. It is also not at the end of the day fundamentally concerned about the environment; it is fundamentally concerned about ideology with the attitude, "We know best."

You laid it out very clearly. The government is saying, "We will reserve unto ourselves all the power, because we can" -- or "I can," as the case may be, the person sitting in the office, the minister or the cabinet; I do not know where it is coming from precisely. "We'll tell you what's best for you." The problem here is that you are not fighting logic. You cannot fight it, I have come to conclude, on the basis of laying it out in that way. What you are fighting here is doctrine, a doctrinal, ideological mindset.

On page 2 you talk about the concept of equity. That is often brought out, the concept of social equity being that each region must deal with its own garbage. That is all well and good, but we do not want to talk about the logical extension of that, which says that the production of a product that is sold elsewhere has the component of waste attached to it. You can only take the concept of equity if it fits the model. There is no opportunity to consider facts that do not fit the ideological model. So you have a problem with that in terms of a sustained argument about equity.

You have the problem with the, "We know best," attitude. It does not matter. "Even when we're inconsistent within the context of the bill, even when we're inconsistent in terms of our promises made, it doesn't matter, because we know best."

I have a letter here dated March 7, 1989, to the then minister, James Bradley. It says:

"I am writing to urge you, in the strongest possible terms, not to exempt from the Environmental Assessment Act the proposal of Metro Toronto to extract clay," north of Keele....

"I suggest that for you to waive the requirements of the act...would run counter to everything that you have said in your term as Environment minister about sound waste management and environmental planning."

That was 1989. In August 1990 it was okay for the Premier to make a promise and it was okay for the minister to make a promise. But now it does not matter because, "It doesn't fit our ideology," and that is the problem you are up against.

What I would like you to do is comment, if you can, on some of the things that may begin to cut through this. I would like you to touch base on some principles you began to talk about, principles about fairness and democracy and what is right and proper, principles about participation and the right of citizens to know they are being heard and considered in allowing their case to be put forward.

What is good for one is good for all in this business. It is not a set of rules for the government. It is not a set of different rules for people who are in the GTA. It is not a different set of rules for IWA. It is the same set of rules for everybody, applied consistently across the province. I would like you to comment about fairness and I would like you to talk a little bit about integrity and consistency, if you can, from a logical point of view with respect to the impact of Bill 143 on the municipality of York.

By the way, I forgot to say who signed the letter, my colleague Mrs Fawcett points out. It was signed, "Yours sincerely, Ruth Grier, MPP, Etobicoke-Lakeshore."

Mr King: I would like to speak first regarding the fairness question, and I would relate my response to the honourable member for St Catharines-Brock, Ms Haeck, and the comments she made about her riding. I do not wish to become involved in the debates on one side or the other, but the region of York believes to the same degree as you do about your riding and we are willing to accept our fair share. We are willing to help others. We just ask that you search out the best possible location for whatever component has to be disposed of, whether it is in the region of York or in the locale of St Catharines or in Dufferin county or wherever. We just ask that we be given the opportunity to be exposed to the same rules as everyone else. I do not know how you can suggest that York has the right site before you examine all the alternatives. That is how we would like to respond to the fairness question. I will ask Mr Blue to comment on the integrity of the situation.

Mr Blue: I think the chairman has come to the heart of the issue. The NDP is a party that I as a lawyer have always looked up to because it protected the environment and always fought for civil liberties. Yet I feel betrayed by this bill. I feel betrayed by this bill because when they were in opposition, with my support they said that all these landfill projects should be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, that there should be full participation and consideration of all alternatives, and that we should have the environmentally best decision for Ontario. In this bill, the same people who were arguing that say, "We do not think our ideas need to be subjected to any such public scrutiny." So this bill is, I guess, unfair in that it takes one particular group's sacred cows and puts them above any independent and objective consideration before the Environmental Assessment Board.

These positions the government is taking are highly arguable on a scientific-technical equity basis. I do not think anyone you will hear who is knowledgeable, who is in the know about incinerator to transportation who will support the government. Yet those views are not going to be put to a hearing. No one who supports them will be subjected to cross-questioning by people who are knowledgeable, and the independent board this province has created to resolve these issues will not be allowed to resolve them. Why? I think that is dreadfully unfair and it is definitely anti-environmental. I feel very disappointed.

Mr Cousens: I am concerned about one of the issues raised in your presentation, Mr Blue, Mr King or someone else. I am concerned about what you said about consultation. The New Democratic government, when it came to power and since it has been in power, continues to talk about its ability to talk with people and to share and to get the best information on which to act. You indicate that this power grab was not negotiated in advance and no fair debate about this responsibility has taken place between the two levels of government. I would like you to elaborate on that or explain it or give some reference on it, because you are out there at the grass-roots where it really happens. If that is the case, then I would like to see the basis for this statement.

Mr King: Mr Cousens, I do not wish to allow this particular question time to become totally partisan. There are many opportunities and situations we could present. I think Mr Blue pointed out that we have always looked to the government that is in power in Ontario at this moment to protect those rights that give us equal opportunity and equal advantage, and we were fortunate to have it do that for us.

It is almost unbelievable to me that this bill absolutely and totally demands that the region of York accept Metro waste. There is no justification to the thought, other than that there is a so-called crisis. It is most unfortunate that we have had an economic downturn that has generated one heck of a lot less waste than would have been generated otherwise -- the waste crisis is now over -- because the sooner we get back to having a crisis as it relates to the matter of the economy, the better off we will be. But I believe we should have the same opportunity as everyone else does and should find the best place to deposit the waste.

Mrs Mathyssen: I noted that you say on page 11 that incineration option would "establish modern, state-of-the-art incinerators in the GTA" and "provide high-technology design jobs, construction employment, capital investment and permanent jobs," and that there would be spinoff jobs. I was quite interested to see you noted that in this report.

What I am more interested in perhaps is what you have excluded. You have excluded the fact that incinerators are very expensive to build and maintain. You have excluded the fact that for every 3,000 tons of garbage you burn, you create 1,000 tons of toxic ash. Now you talk about the efficiency of the stacks which minimize the health risk, but you have forgotten the Catch-22 that the efficient stack makes the ash that much more hazardous, that much more toxic, and it has to be landfilled anyway.

This morning we heard from Dr Paul Connett, who by virtue of the fact that he is a professor of chemistry is indeed a scientist. His presentation was quite excellent, quite convincing. He said that incineration was not an environmental option. In fact he said that even if it could be proven safe, which I doubt it could be, it would not be sensible. Incinerators eat garbage, they need garbage and they are contrary to the 3Rs. Would you agree that keeping valuable resources, recyclables, reusables, making use of these resources, makes more sense than that?


Mr King: We totally agree with the premise and the objectivity of maintaining and keeping, reusing -- whatever word you want to use -- out of that waste stream. We were talking about the alternatives used to manage the disposal of the balance. We not are debating the other.

Mr Blue: Mrs Mathyssen, to deal with your points, everyone supports that the 3Rs are the preferable and the highest waste treatment forms on the waste hierarchy. What we do not all agree about is what you do with what is left after you 3R. You mentioned Dr Paul Connett. I know his work. I know he is an extremely partisan speaker against incineration. Most knowledgeable incinerator persons I have spoken with, and I refer to virtually everyone who attended the University of Toronto symposium on incineration in June 1990 and spoke about incineration technology, would disagree with him.

I want to deal with your comments about incineration as expensive to build and maintain. I suppose so, but so is landfill by the time you tot up the bill that you are going to pay for the Interim Waste Authority. The incinerators are totally within the means of the greater Toronto area.

With respect to 100,000 tons of toxic ash, incinerators do not alter the law of conservation of matter. If it was toxic after it was burned, it was toxic before it was burned, only there is less of it. With respect, to put those toxics into a landfill untreated is much less responsible than reducing the toxics completely.

With respect to the concentrations, is the member suggesting that dilution is a solution? Are you suggesting that it is much better to dilute? If so, that comment is, I think, contrary to all environmental policy of this province for the last 20 years. Sure, if you landfill it you are going to be landfilling a lot less in total; I think that is the point about incineration. Incinerators can be operated well within provincial standards. If they were not, we would not have any operating in the province because the ministry would have shut them down.

Mrs Mathyssen: I believe Dr Connett did not say that you simply dilute the toxins and then bury them. That is perhaps not quite accurate. He suggested that they be completely removed.

What I would like is a list of those experts from this symposium. I would like to know who they are and who they represent -- I would appreciate that very much -- and what they have published.

The Chair: Could you accept that as a question of notice on the record and provide that to the committee in writing at some point in the future?

Mr Blue: I would have been surprised if it had not been asked. I will do that, Madam Chair.

Mr McClelland: You have extensive experience across the province. Mr Blue may want to confirm this. Correct me if I am wrong if you will, but my understanding is that it is conservatively estimated that it is in the range of $750,000 per acre for an engineered landfill site. I would appreciate some comment on that. Further to that, gentlemen, I was wondering if you could help us in terms of the impact that implementation of Bill 143 in its present form would have on the taxpayers of your community and on the taxpayers of the region. You may even have some insight with respect to the taxpayers from Metro as well. I am sure you can concentrate it in terms of financial impact on your own specific jurisdiction.

Mr King: Certainly there is financial impact. It is being noticed right at the present time, because in the present agreement we did not necessarily include and negotiate all the highways etc that should have been in place. It is causing a great deal of disservice to many of our communities, including the movement of clay to permit the cover on each day's activity. I do not have a dollars-and-cents figure on that for you this afternoon, Mr McClelland. Bill 143 is very indicative of the that we would not have the opportunity to negotiate and include all the impairment we would have to expect. Certainly we would be subjected to many costs we would not have control over.

Mr Cousens: We had hoped the ministry would make available a list of possible landfill sites that would be selected. We did not receive that list prior to these hearings and it is not going to be available to us until this bill is passed. Yet it opens up the question as to what will happen in York region, as you might understand. Could you explain what you see happening? Could you give us some forecast of what is going to happen with the future selection of landfill sites?

Mr Blue: We have talked to the Interim Waste Authority and we were told at one point that there would be a list of those sites published after, I think it is, the second phase of the process. That seems to have been frozen once it was announced that this bill would be considered by the committee. We believe they have that list and are holding on to it until the bill is passed. Why, I do not know. They are a legally incorporated body. They can do their work, they are being funded and they should get on with their work. I think it is unfortunate that the IWA is withholding relevant information from the Legislature.

Mr Cousens: That is my point and I see that as grievous in the extreme.

The Chair: Questions for the record: Mr Wiseman, Mr McClelland, and then there are a couple of minutes.

Mr Wiseman: My question is to the IWA. Are you withholding information on long-term lists or have you not compiled those lists?

Mr O'Connor: Thank you for raising that, Mr Wiseman. Actually a point of clarification I was going to raise now anyway was the fact that there is no list at this point in time. You can rest assured on behalf of the residents of York region that there is no list right now. In fact, the IWA has been directed to look inside Metro as well.

Mr McClelland: Since there is no list, I am going to ask that the IWA or the ministry put together a list of those sites that have had preliminary examination and make that list available to this committee as soon as possible. I would ask that it be done by the beginning of next week. It does not have to be formally an IWA list, but it can certainly be a list of those sites that have had preliminary examination and that list surely can be pulled together.

Mr Cousens: I concur with that request.

The Chair: Chairman King, I have reserved about four minutes for you. If there is anything you would like to sum up for the committee, please do so now.

Mr King: Mr O'Connor said that the IWA was now directed to look within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr O'Connor: Within York and Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr King: Was that not always the case?

Mr O'Connor: Exactly. There seemed to be some inference that it was only going to take place within York region. That was why it was a point of clarification.

Mr King: I think that is quite clear without looking too far, but I was certainly happy to hear you include Metropolitan Toronto. The part that bothers most about the bill, as you read the documentation regarding the site-selection process, is that if you can come up with arrows pointing anywhere else than the region of York, I want you to give me documentation that would prove to me that such is the case. All we ask again, and I reiterate and emphasize, just give the region of York the same import opportunities as any other municipality in this province, and give Metro the same export opportunities as any other municipality in this province.


The Chair: I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the committee to thank you for appearing today. If there are other pieces of information or anything you feel would be helpful to the committee during its deliberations, please feel free to communicate with us in writing. Anything we receive prior to February 14 becomes part of the public record. If it is after February 14, all members will be made aware of it. We appreciate your participation. I also would like to acknowledge the number of municipal representatives who have come from York region today and thank them for their attendance at these hearings.

Mr King: On behalf of the delegation we thank you for your attention and understanding.


The Chair: The next deputation is from the city of Vaughan. I ask her worship the mayor to come forward and begin the presentation by introducing her delegation. There is a full hour for the presentation. We ask if you would leave as much time as possible for questions from committee members. If you wish, I will reserve a few minutes at the end for you to be able to sum up.

We will give the mayor a minute while the room is being cleared. I ask that everyone do that as quietly as possible so that we can have full attention for the delegation from Vaughan. Would you begin your presentation now, please.

Mrs Jackson: Madam Chair and honourable members, I want to tell you how very pleased we are to have this opportunity. The city of Vaughan asked for this opportunity and we are extremely pleased to be here in front of you. I would like to introduce first Mr Scott Somerville, our chief administrative officer and also chairman of our Keele Valley liaison committee, which consists of members of the Ministry of the Environment, Metropolitan Toronto and the city. Our solicitor is Mr Tom Lederer from Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt. He is representing us today.

I want to say very clearly to all members that I consider myself to be an environmentalist. I sit on the Association of Municipalities of Ontario's environmental committee. I sat on the trees committee of AMO and the Ministry of Natural Resources. I am also well versed in municipal affairs, as I am the vice-chair of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario's large urban section. Keele Valley is in my municipality. In fact, I can see it from my office window. It is not owned by us. This is something that some people miss. Keele Valley is owned by Metropolitan Toronto but is located in the city of Vaughan.

First, let me make it very clear that I understand there is a need for the provincial government to take action to improve waste management in this province. But Bill 143 does not do it. Bill 143 was drafted with no consultation with any municipality, certainly not with the city of Vaughan or the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. It is severely flawed. In fact, many feel it is a very dangerous piece of legislation. I have had the opportunity to read the comments made by the Honourable Ruth Grier to your committee on Monday. I was pleased to see that she already recognizes the need for some amendments.

She outlined the principals of her approach to waste management strategy: (1) to put the environment first, (2) to promote a conserver society and (3) to prevent pollution. Bill 143 may promote a conserver society but it fails badly where the other two are considered. It does not put the environment first and many are concerned that pollution may result from hastily approved emergency solutions.

The honourable minister also explained her reason for Bill 143, stating by way of explanation that the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee "was moving slowly and its specific plan was one which this government could not support. That proposed solution was to meet the impending waste crisis with two new interim landfill sites, in Brampton and Whitevale. These sites were granted exemptions under the Environmental Assessment Act. Our party, in opposition, had clearly stated that this was not acceptable."

Mr McClelland stole my thunder a little bit with the letter, which I also have, that was addressed to the Honourable Jim Bradley, signed by Ruth Grier, expressing her great concern that the Keele Valley landfill site was not going to undergo a full Environmental Assessment Act assessment. I have copies of that letter for everyone.

Bill 143 effectively exempts Keele Valley from the Environmental Assessment Act, the very thing that the now minister, Grier, objected to a few short months ago prior to her taking office. How can the minister justify such obvious contradictions and inconsistencies, especially when there is no crisis at Keele Valley?

The bill does not appear to recognize that a Metropolitan Toronto works department memorandum reported that staff of the Ministry of the Environment estimated another seven to eight years of additional life remains within the existing approved capacity at the Keele Valley landfill site. Since there is no crisis at Keele Valley, what is the need for such emergency measures, particularly as they apply to Keele Valley? Why should the concerns about the environment outlined by Mrs Grier in her letter be ignored for expediency?

There are many concerns about this bill. I would like to touch on some others I just heard mentioned. The municipalities outside the GTA are upset because although they do not like the arbitrary methods that are being employed and the erosion of municipal rights, they do recognize that amendments must be made to the Environmental Assessment Act. Their point is: Do not attempt a Band-Aid solution for the GTA only; improve and streamline the Environmental Assessment Act for all communities in Ontario.

York region and Metro Toronto should not be lumped together in the long-term search. The chairman of the region has just gone into this. I will not go into it any further but just say that it does not make any sense to lump York region and Metropolitan Toronto together. We are told that because we are a municipality surrounding Metropolitan Toronto, we all share in the benefits of Metropolitan Toronto. Then should we not also all share in the disadvantages of Metropolitan Toronto? Why is only York being singled out?

The minister has said "out of sight, out of mind" when it comes to her opposition to shipping to Kirkland Lake. From a practical standpoint, how will waste being deposited in Vaughan influence how an individual person or manufacturer handles his waste in, say, Scarborough or Mimico?

The minister's preferences with regard to incineration and rail haul should not be enshrined in legislation, particularly when you realize this is not an environmental bill; this is a GTA bill. I do not wish to get into incineration. I do not know if it is a good idea. You do not know if it is good. But there are experts who should debate this. Incineration and rail haul may or may not be the solution, but they should be investigated thoroughly before they are so completely outlawed and enshrined in this bill. I believe this is a classic example of, "Don't confuse me with the facts."

We have distributed to you in these red folders the more legal side of our concerns. I would like to touch on them very briefly and then I will let our solicitor get into them more fully.

There are three basic flaws in Bill 143. The first is the removal of environmental and democratic rights. Bill 143 removes the rights of citizens to question decisions that will have important impacts on their homes, their families and their environment.


Ontario law protects against premature or unwise waste disposal decisions by providing citizens with the right to be heard by an independent tribunal at a public hearing, the right to question environmental proposals and the right to examine alternatives. Ontario's Environmental Protection Act and Environmental Assessment Act provide citizens with the right to public hearings before an independent tribunal on matters of public waste management. Normally part IV of the Environmental Protection Act would allow the Ontario government to allow for an environmental assessment before consideration of the extension, alteration or a lift at Keele Valley landfill.

However, under part III of Bill 143, the provisions of these and other laws that apply to waste management questions would be overridden in so far as they apply to the citizens of the GTA. Bill 143 would therefore discriminate against the citizens of Vaughan, other municipalities, and ultimately against our environment by removing long-standing environmental rights. It would establish two classes of citizens, two sets of rights and two classes of environmental protection. There must be only one set of rights for the citizens of Ontario. Ontario citizens are also protected by the democratic right of their elected municipal representatives to enter into binding agreements and contracts on waste management problems.

This is the case between the city of Vaughan and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Vaughan retains various contract rights with respect to Metro's ownership of the Keele Valley landfill. Part III of Bill 143 would override binding contracts such as that between Metro and Vaughan and would also remove Vaughan's right to compensation for expropriation, its right to preserve territorial integrity, its right not to pay for unwanted projects and its right to not take on long-term financial obligations that may be unwanted by its taxpayers. It is the position of the city of Vaughan that the environmental and democratic rights of citizens and municipalities should not be considered impediments to be arbitrarily overridden by provincial legislation. Part III of Bill 143 should therefore be removed from this act.

Second is the transfer of power to non-accountable sources. We are also concerned that the removal of environmental and democratic rights under Bill 143 will be accompanied by, and largely achieved through, the delegation of responsibilities away from the Ontario Legislature to the cabinet, the Minister of the Environment or unaccountable employees of the Ministry of the Environment. Clause 17(8)(d) of Bill 143 would allow the cabinet, by regulation, to override any acts of the Legislature in order to enforce ministerial orders. Subsection 17(2) would permit the minister to amend ministerial orders without regard for local concerns, statutes such as the Environmental Assessment Act or any other requirement for review by the Legislature.

I understand that when the minister spoke to you on Monday she stated her intention to amend section 26, which would have permitted the director of approvals to override contractual arrangements or statutory rights in order to force municipalities to establish, expand or discontinue waste management systems. However, several other sections contain reference to the delegation of authority to a director from the minister. These sections provide for a dangerous erosion of political responsibility. They should all be removed.

Our third concern is for implications beyond the greater Toronto area. Bill 143 sets a very dangerous precedent for citizens of all municipalities across Ontario. Clause 136(4)(k) and 136(4)(l) would give the cabinet the regulatory authority to require municipalities to establish waste sites or waste management systems and to further order those municipalities "to maintain, operate, improve, enlarge, alter, repair or replace the waste disposal sites or waste management systems or systems in such manner as may be specified in the regulation." In effect, these clauses allow the Ontario cabinet to replicate the extraordinary measures contemplated in Bill 143 in any community where it might deem there to be a real or a perceived garbage gap.

With over 100 landfill sites scheduled to close in Ontario over the next two years, this raises the spectre of rule by arbitrary decree. In allowing the government, by regulation, to impose on every municipality in Ontario the non-reviewable orders that Bill 143 imposes on the GTA, Bill 143 overrides and renders useless all provincial legislation dealing with waste management. It is an affront to the environmental and democratic rights of all Ontarians.

The city of Vaughan recommends that the abovementioned clauses be removed to ensure the protection of the democratic and environmental rights of citizens all across Ontario. We have to recognize here today the need to improve legislation to deal with waste management. Bill 143 just does not do it. But I would like this committee to look beyond waste management today. This is a rights issue. We had a rally on the steps of Queen's Park. We had hundreds of our residents out because they were concerned about their rights. These citizens took time off their work in the middle of the day to come down here to say to you all, "You are infringing on our rights."

This is a fundamental issue of rights: (1) environmental rights, (2) democratic rights, (3) the right to hold hearings, (4) the right to examine alternatives and (5) the right to consider what is best for the environment and people's homes and families. There is no reason to take such drastic measures as are embodied in this bill. Each of you, regardless of party, must ask yourself, "Would my constituents want their rights removed?" That is really the bottom line. We can assist this committee in making amendments to this bill that will find solutions without removing the environmental and democratic rights of citizens of Ontario.

I will now ask our solicitor to go over some of those suggestions.

Mr Lederer: Before I begin any submissions or statements to you with respect to the content of the bill, I will explain to you how these two red books work, so that if you have an opportunity to review them in the future, as I hope you will, you will see how the two of them fit together.

Mr Cousens: The red is for Greg Sorbara.

Mr Lederer: Ours is a completely non-partisan delegation, Madam Chair.

Mr Cousens: Well, it is red.

Mrs Jackson: We could not find the right colour.

Mr Lederer: It was obviously the right colour, Madam Chair; it attracted attention.

Mr Cousens: It would be better if it were blue.

The Chair: Mr Cousens, look what you have provoked. I am going to have to call order and I am going to have to deduct it from your time.

Mr Cousens: You are worse than my wife.

The Chair: Please continue.

Mr Lederer: The smaller of the two books is the substantive material we seek to place before you. It has, as you will see, four tabs, each labelled with a letter. The first of the tabs is a resolution of the corporation of the city of Vaughan indicating its support for the position that is taken here this afternoon by the mayor. The second is a one-page executive summary of the brief, which is meant to again outline for you shortly the basic points outlined by the mayor. The third is the substantive brief, which we hope you will see as non-partisan but as a careful analysis of this bill. It is meant to indicate to you some of the weaknesses we see in it, which we will hope you will see as supporting the position that is being taken this afternoon on behalf of the corporation of the city of Vaughan.

Finally at the fourth tab is an annotated copy of the bill. If you look at this document, you will see that on the left-hand side, in typical typescript, is the bill itself. On the right-hand side, in italics, are various comments with respect to the bill that are meant to outline to you the nature of our concerns and comments arising from the wording of the legislation itself.

As a general proposition, this brief is designed to raise with you several significant issues. First, over the last 10 to 15 years, an impressive legislative scheme has come into place in Ontario, one which is replete with opportunities for public consultation and replete with opportunities for public hearings and public debate over the kinds of issues raised by the problems concerning waste disposal in this province.


If I can try to give you some indication by reference to the acts of the sorts of protections that are in place, or are affected by this bill, we have for the purposes of the brief broken these protections into environmental protections and democratic protections.

First of all, environmental protections: The Environmental Assessment Act is a significant piece of legislation. It adds dramatically to the planning process of environmentally sensitive projects in the province. Most particularly, it requires a proponent to examine all reasonable alternatives and to compare the environmental impacts of those alternatives to the proposal they seek to take forward and have approved.

Those studies are subjected to a hearing and to full public disclosure and debate. The Environmental Protection Act, and particularly part V of that act, deals with the technical requirements of a landfill. Can a landfill be properly and safely operated in the location that is proposed? Again, for any significant landfill, it is subjected to full public debate at a public hearing. Even the Planning Act, an older piece of legislation dealing with land use development, requires the Ontario Municipal Board, in considering official plans or official plan amendments, to have regard to environmental matters. These are the kinds of environmental protections that are presently in place.

The second area of protection is democratic protections. These we have defined as the ability of the local municipality to influence events. For example, in the Municipal Act and in the various regional acts there is the requirement that before another municipality acquires land or seeks to operate a landfill within those boundaries, that regional municipality or the local municipality has the opportunity to give its consent or to refuse it, and if refused, to have the matter go to a full public inquiry for full public debate in front of the Ontario Municipal Board. It is that requirement for consent that allows municipalities to negotiate with those who seek to place these landfill sites and to impose terms by contract on the people who seek to operate and place those landfills.

There is even within these rights some protection for individuals to see that decisions by their municipal governments are made in a financially responsible way, because no council can commit funds beyond its current term without the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board.

This whole series of protections with respect to the expansion of Keele Valley, the expansion of Britannia Road or the location of transfer stations in Durham for the interim have been removed. They will be gone. The consents required are deemed to have been given, with no ability now to negotiate contracts. Those contracts that presently exist are gone. There is a very significant contract between the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the city of Vaughan that deals with the operation of Keele Valley and with some decisions over the final contours, with royalties and with access roads. Those protections disappear with respect to these expansions if this bill is passed.

Section 64 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, the section that allows the Ontario Municipal Board to have some jurisdiction to look at the financial obligations being undertaken by municipalities, is gone. All of this is replaced by a notice to be given to the public with 21 days to respond, and then, without further consultation, the ability of the director of approvals to issue a certificate of approval.

This may beg the question of whether these hearings are really useful, whether they accomplish anything. May I give you just a couple of examples.

Last year it was proposed that a new clay borrow pit be opened to service and provide cover material, liner material, to the Keele Valley landfill. The proposition was made that this was urgent and necessary. The board did not feel it necessary even to complete the hearing before finding that in fact it was not necessary and that a proper case was not being made. These hearings can demonstrate whether or not the real urgencies that are claimed are present.

There are at least two landfill applications that have been made in the province and refused by the board. Had they been considered urgent, they would with this legislation have been placed and applicable and would now be operating. These hearings do serve a function and they ought not to be turned aside. When the mayor speaks of rights being withdrawn, these are the kinds of rights she is speaking of.

The mayor has also referred you to the idea that this bill will see a shift of responsibility, a shift of political accountability and a centralization of the responsibilities in this area. Clause 17(8)(d) of part III is the catch-all phrase that basically says, "If there is some legislation we have not yet set aside in this bill, we will do it later by regulation." What that section says is that if some other act appears which is relevant to this proceeding, then cabinet can override it by regulation. It will not go back to the House. It will not be considered by the Legislature, and that, in my submission to you, is a real movement of power and responsibility from the Legislature to the cabinet.

Reference has been made to the fact that the minister has now agreed or proposed that she amend section 26, which is itself an amendment of section 29, so that the kind of report issued last August that directs the region of Peel, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the region of Durham to deal with waste -- she will still maintain the responsibility for those kinds of reports rather than move them to the director. That is not the significant role the director has been asked to play. Really, as Mayor McCallion suggested to you yesterday, in those circumstances, what is the difference between the director and the minister?

In these circumstances, under subsection 18(2) the director, having determined not to hold a hearing, is permitted to impose conditions that override conditions that the regional municipality may want or that the local municipality may want -- may want, not just have imposed. The director, a bureaucrat, overrides the elected officials of these municipalities. That is a movement from elected, accountable officials to a civil servant and is not appropriate. These are the kinds -- not the only ones -- of power shifts that are apparent in this bill and that will apply to these expansions if the bill is permitted to pass.

The mayor has referred you to the fact that these powers can now, by regulation -- you will find this in part II; I believe it is subsection 33(2) -- be extended, with passage, to any other municipality in the province. We are not just dealing with the GTA perspective. We are dealing with virtually every municipality in this province. It will not come back to the Legislature if this bill passes.

The third point the mayor has raised with you is the notion of the Environmental Assessment Act and the impact now of the Interim Waste Authority and the powers given to that agency. As I said at the outset, the most important addition the Environmental Assessment Act makes to the planning process in Ontario is the requirement to look at all reasonable alternatives. With this act all reasonable alternatives in the GTA are removed. Incineration is removed; hauling outside of the GTA to Kirkland Lake is removed; multiple sites are removed.

It is my summation to you that the issue is not, as was perhaps suggested in the last exchange between Mr Blue and the members, whether incineration is good or bad; the issue is whether or not incineration, as an alternative many people find reasonable and are prepared to support, is going to be tested by a full environmental assessment process and a full debate before the Environmental Assessment Board.

One of the documents we have quoted in part in our brief is the decision of the Environmental Assessment Board dealing with an application for an incinerator in the region of Peel, the so-called SNC Inc case. What the board said, in that case, was that incineration in that application was a reasonable complement to other waste management technologies and that it fell well within the safety factors we ought to be guarding against. It was found in that case to be a reasonable alternative.


We have provided you with the article that was in the Sunday Star not that long ago, indicating the way incineration is relied upon in Sweden and in Denmark. Maybe in a particular case in the GTA it would not be approved, but it bears to be tested by environmental assessment, not to be jettisoned in this bill without any kind of technical support.

I understand that you heard this morning from the people who support the rail haul. Many people do support it. The brief indicates to you that the city of Vaughan is prepared to support it and to support the idea that the transfer station would be located within its boundaries. Maybe it will not pass muster at the board, but many people feel it is reasonable. Many people have spent money studying that process. It deserves to be studied by the board, an independent tribunal. If the ministry is truly opposed to it, it has appeared before the board before and opposed matters and it can oppose this, but at least then it is subjected to the full inquiry that our present legislative scheme foresees.

If the principle "out of sight, out of mind" means people will not be as conscious about the 3Rs, then perhaps we ought to have more landfills nearer to more people. Multiple sites then, if they can be justified on a technical basis, would seem to be a reasonable alternative. They are ruled out here. They deserve to be studied. Maybe they should be ruled out. Maybe a single site for all of the GTA is what is appropriate. We do not say they are right or they are wrong, only that to withdraw them without the technical background and the kind of public examination the present legislative scheme calls for is not appropriate. It is a kind of ad hoc amendment to the Environmental Assessment Act that ignores the comprehensive work being done by the environmental assessment program improvement project to see whether or not there are real amendments that can be made that will recognize the central core of this act; that is, the need to look at alternatives and yet allow it to be a more expeditious process, one that can be done perhaps even more cheaply.

What is the basis for all these changes, for all these amendments? It is the idea that in the GTA we have an urgent problem. We have quoted for you in our brief some of the more recent statements, all of which I am sure you must now be aware of, which deal with that urgent call. Metropolitan Toronto's own estimates now say that the Keele Valley site will remain open to its present approved contours until 1999. Is it the beginning of 1999 or the end? You have seven or eight years, from those dates, to find a proper replacement. That is plenty of time to operate the legislative scheme in place.

If the recession ends and times boom and the predictions of 1996 come to the fore, are we really so sure today, given all the work that has already been done, that we cannot complete an environmental assessment by the end of 1994 or 1995 and allow for the construction of a new site? It is too early to make that determination. Even if you want to make that determination now, you still have available to you the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the hearings called for now under that act. That is available now.

It is quite typical for the ministry presently, without any change to legislation, to exempt the application for some particular landfill from the Environmental Assessment Act and then leave part V, that is, the section 30 hearing under the Environmental Protection Act, in place. That can be done now. You do not need to take away people's rights. You do not need to threaten. You do not need to put in place the ability to do it to others later. You can do it now. In fact, that is traditionally what has been done by the ministry to deal with these problems. There is no urgency and this bill is accordingly misconceived and ought not, in our submission, to be taken forward.

What the city asks is that you recommend that this bill simply not be considered further. In the alternative, we ask that you reject part III as being unnecessary and those parts of part IV -- there are some of the regulation-making powers to which I have referred -- that allow for the enlargement of the scope of part III. Obviously, they are part of that same scheme.

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation. Are you ready for questions?

Mrs Jackson: Yes. Time is getting on and I would rather have the option to answer questions.

Mr McClelland: At the outset let me say, Mr Lederer, that this is one of the most comprehensive reviews, in the short space of time available for a legislative scheme, that I have ever heard. I want to congratulate you on that. I urge my colleagues on this board from all sides to work their way through it -- it will take some work -- and to begin to understand some of the things you were talking about.

We spoke in opposition in an attempt to get this to hearings, which was a major hurdle, to get over the hump and get this thing into public hearings for people to begin to understand that there were some fundamental legal principles that were at stake here. It was very reluctantly, I say, that you have had the opportunity to come here -- very reluctantly on the part of the government -- to begin to make the case as somebody who is exceptionally well qualified in the law and has extensive experience in this. I thank you for that. I thank you for drawing attention to some of the principles that are at stake here; for example, the fact that this may spill over into other parts of the province without consideration by my colleagues opposite or any of us here. It may happen and we would not even know about it until after the fact. That is contained; it is not simply a GTA bill. It has implications across the province.

As well, you drew so very well to our attention the fact that it moves the ability into a regulatory process without accountability -- it could be done behind closed doors -- and how that is so contrary to all the principles we believe in and one of the reasons we are here and elected to serve here.

How did you find out about Bill 143?

Mrs Jackson: I got a call late one night from Mr Somerville that Mr Lederer had happened to notice a little piece in the paper about it. That is how we found about it.

Mr Lederer: I would love to take the credit for it. It was not me. It was another.

Mrs Jackson: It was one of our solicitors.

Mr McClelland: Let me tell you that my colleague Greg Sorbara from your area, and others, were distressed to learn that this bill was introduced without ministerial statement. The rationale was this: "It embodies the principles of the Environmental Assessment Act in any event and we are just going to carry it forward." You, sir, have done a superb job in outlining how it is anything but, that it runs completely contrary.

Madam Mayor, I am going to ask, with your indulgence, to read into the record something that summarizes it. I would ask either you or counsel to expand on it and perhaps again to summarize, because I think it bears repeating. We have to begin to understand what is at stake here in terms of Bill 143. This is a letter to the Honourable Bob Rae over your signature, Madam Mayor, dated November 21:

"You and your government have always supported public consultation and the need for people to be heard. Now your government is removing our rights, as established, not only by the Environmental Assessment Act, but by by every other applicable piece of legislation.

"Your party was not elected to remove these rights but, rather, to support and enhance them."

I do not know what more I can say in terms of the assessments you have done of the bill. My colleague has a question she wants to put to you, but I wonder if you would again try to encapsulate, if you can, in a couple of moments, what this is doing to the fundamental evolution of law in terms of environmental protection, how it puts that in jeopardy, how it puts it out of the public view, not accountable to the Legislature, and pushes it into the back rooms, if you will, the closed doors of cabinet.

Mrs Jackson: I believe that is definitely a legal question and not a political one.

Mr Lederer: The whole thrust of the development of this kind of legislation in the province has been dedicated to the central importance of public consultation. In fact, public consultation, you may be interested to know, is not actually referred to anywhere in the Environmental Assessment Act, and yet it has become an integral part of any environmental assessment process. You cannot submit an application to the ministry or go before the board if you have not had an intensive program of public consultation. It has been inherently part of our land use planning process for much longer. Many of you will know that the Ontario Municipal Board goes back really before the war.

All of that fundamental core is jettisoned and thrown out with respect to these expansions if this bill is passed. It is a denial of everything that has formed the foundation of this legislative scheme over the past 10 to 15 years.


Mr Cousens: Welcome, Mayor Jackson. I see a number of your councillors here as well, and following on the region of York's presentation, I am very impressed. I want to go back a step and say I have been impressed by your personal commitment and the council's commitment for a long time on matters pertaining to environmental concerns. I do not think anyone would have had the acclamations you just had, had you not been taking the leadership role you have on those matters within the community.

I will go on record with one more statement. Having once represented a part of Vaughan and now living in the neighbouring riding of Markham, I would like to put on the record that Greg Sorbara, the member for that area, and I have shared a common concern about the things you have presented today. I think there are times when you drop the partisan role and I would like to go on record that I am confident he would have been here had it not been for other matters within the Liberal Party at the present time, but as his neighbour, I know his presentations in the House and otherwise have been of the highest nature and calibre in support of the presentation you are making today.

The Chair: Do you think I should add back the minute I deducted?

Mr Cousens: I do not know. I teased at the beginning and then I started feeling guilty. There is an element here where I think we should, if possible, drop the partisan lines because we are dealing with the most sensitive thing we have been given, and that is our environment. On matters that pertain in York region, there has been a very strong relationship among all the MPPs. Maybe we will be able to tie in the parliamentary assistant on this one and cause some reversals. There is still a hope maybe. Anyway, I am working on him.

I also would like to reinforce the statement made by my colleague Mr McClelland on the presentation. Outstanding is the best way to describe it and it is very much appreciated. We will try to go through it, but the problem is -- you followed one of the best and now we have another one of the best, and it will go on.

I have just a couple of questions. One has to do with a legal challenge to this bill. Is there any way in which there could be any legal challenge? There are a number of elements you have raised having to do with civil rights, liberties and other matters, but is there any way in which, when we are reviewing this bill further in clause-by-clause, there could be a legal challenge to it?

My second question has to do with the clay liner. A presentation was made this week by officials of the ministry. I think if the minister heard those presentations -- and I am sure she did -- it had to do with the fact that the clay liner underneath this Keele Valley landfill site is one of the most advanced, refined clay liners ever made by man -- or woman, whomever. Anyway, it is a real advanced clay liner. It would almost make one believe the more you put in on top of that clay liner, the more it is going to tighten the clay underneath it, so that is more reason to add more tiers to it.

I have a sense the ministry has been saying to the minister, "It's going to pass an environmental assessment anyway, so why bother?" Therefore, I would like to know some of your major concerns that would come out on why an environmental assessment is very important on the Keele Valley landfill site. So it is the legal challenge and the clay liner.

Mr Lederer: I know the question of the legal challenge was put to me so I will respond to that. We have had some cause to consider that question, although I would not want to say that a complete or refined opinion has been prepared. As you know, it is part of our constitutional tradition that the Legislature, Parliament, is supreme. Accordingly, based upon those older traditions, you really could not attack a piece of legislation.

Having said that, we have had a major incursion into that notion with the passage, promulgation and action taken with respect to the Charter of Rights. Legislation must be consistent with the rights expressed in that charter. The issue you raise, or the question asked is, does this bill in some fashion offend the Charter of Rights?

The Charter of Rights is being interpreted in a way that suggests that while such an argument may be possible, it is highly problematic because the rights are really rights of individuals, and for them to make such a claim you would probably have to demonstrate some real, physical health harm or true risk to some individual. Finding such an individual may be difficult and extending it to the point of saying that it was not also within section 1 of the charter, which you may know is something that can be -- even a breach of rights can exist if it is something that is reasonable in a free and democratic society, so there is a very strong test that would have to be met to overcome, even with the charter, the traditional notion of the supremacy of Parliament.

It is possible. It would be difficult to do. Whether, with a refined opinion in a particular case, we would recommend it is, first of all, something I am not sure I would say here if I knew but in any event, I do not know.

Mrs Jackson: As far as the clay liner goes, the lining of a pit to contain garbage -- this is a sandpit on the Oak Ridges moraine. It is very porous, and the idea was that you would put some clay in, tamp it down, and it would contain all the leach and poisons that are going to pour out of this garbage.

It is basically an untried technology. They are experimenting as they go along. There is a huge question as to whether it is going to work or not. We understand from the ministry itself that in some places the leachate is already halfway through this clay liner and it has only been eight years. Is this clay liner going to work or are we going to pollute the Don River and eventually the drinking water of Toronto, and us? We do not know. That is why we feel very strongly that we need hearings. If the minister says, "Yes, we have lots of time and there is going to be time; we will have hearings," then why do we need this piece of legislation?

This is one of the problems we have with Bill 143. It says we are not going to have the opportunity to find out whether water is going to seep through this liner all the way and pollute the water table. That is what concerns us.

Mr Lessard: My question is for the mayor. I was happy to see you classified yourself as an environmentalist. My questions are going to be more towards that vein. I am going to suggest that for us to deal with waste management issues in the future, we really need to change people's attitudes and move towards reduction as our first priority. Would you agree with that?

Mrs Jackson: Absolutely.

Mr Lessard: One of the ways we could change people's attitudes about moving towards reduction is ensuring that waste is dealt with as close as possible to where it is generated.

Mrs Jackson: I agree.

Mr Lessard: I think that is what part IV of this bill is attempting to do, and part III for that matter as well. I will give you a chance to comment, but just one final question. As an environmentalist, maybe you could give me some suggestions as to what I might be able to do with these voluminous materials that have been provided for us after we have had an opportunity to read through them, because the work of this committee will end at some point. I know the problems in dealing with waste in the Metro area are going to go on for some time afterwards.


Mrs Jackson: Yes, definitely. As you can see, this is on recycled paper and can be recycled, so I do not think it is a problem, but I hope you read it very carefully before it is thrown in the shredder.

We agree completely with your concern about disposing of waste as close to the source as possible to make people aware of what is happening. We feel very strongly, as I said in my comments -- somebody who lives in Toronto has absolutely no idea where Keele Valley is. They leave their garbage on the doorstep or at the curb and it disappears; it does not matter if it goes to Vaughan or Kirkland Lake, it is gone. If it was in Metropolitan Toronto, maybe Metropolitan Toronto would start to look a little more closely at the quantities of waste it is disposing of in someone else's municipality.

Mrs Fawcett: I want to go a little further on what my colleague was talking about. What happens if this bill passes? You were very thorough in outlining some of the environmental protections in place now and that when one is establishing a landfill they should definitely remain. I guess I really am concerned when we hear that there are least 100, maybe over 100, landfills that are going to reach capacity in the next couple of years. I think that was a statement made.

In my riding of Northumberland -- I am in one of the outlying regions -- we have been dealing with some of these problems. If these protections are removed -- as this government seems to jump from one crisis to another, rather than really applying the overall solid planning approach to waste management -- in your view could we potentially see one lawsuit after another, because things will start to happen that were not caught because the protections were not really thought out in the manner they are now, before this bill passes?

Mr Lederer: I am not sure it would be fair to say you will see lawsuits in these other outlying locations as a result of this bill. There are landfills there now. If those landfills are causing problems, then those problems exist now and any lawsuits that arise from them will arise in any event.

Mrs Fawcett: But as they look for new ones and if we do not go through the process, then I am saying down the road --

Mr Lederer: It stands to reason that you will have in place landfills that have not been properly tested and are more likely to cause problems and that therefore are more likely to cause the kind of lawsuit you foresee, yes.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, your worship, for your presentation. I think I can speak for the minister in acknowledging that additional capacity has been realized at Keele Valley. I think she would also say that the extension of the landfill will not occur unless it is required. We have to know it is required. She said in her opening statement that a hearing will be held if there is time.

It is my understanding from the minister's report -- I have just been looking back over it -- that if there is time, if it is possible, the community is to be involved and that Metro Toronto has designed a program for that community involvement. What is your reaction to those provisions?

Mrs Jackson: If we are getting back to Bill 143 for a moment, as I said earlier, if all those things are true and if all those things happen in the time frames we are talking about, then there is no need for Bill 143. Certainly hearings can continue.

I understand that Metropolitan Toronto has gone to a consultant and is getting a great amount of information which will be made available, but we have to have that opportunity to have sufficient time for our consultants to look over all that material and ensure it is correct from our point of view. You can only do that by way of total hearings on it. I am sorry; I am not exactly sure what you are getting at. I understand the minister will try, and hopes Keele Valley will not have to be expanded, but our concerns go beyond that to Bill 143 and the rights it is taking away.

Mrs Mathyssen: To clarify, you say you believe the landfill will last until 1999. We have heard 1996; we have heard 1997. If it does not last until 1999 -- the experts say that is elastic and they are not sure -- what do we do in the interim? What do we do if 1999 is not a possibility or a reality?

The Chair: Mayor, I am going to ask that you accept Mrs Mathyssen's last question as notice of question and that you reply either in writing or during your summation. Mr Wiseman, you wanted to place a question on the record as notice?

Mr Wiseman: Yes. First, I would like to make a quick comment that I am about a mile and half from the Durham-York sewage treatment plant, so anything that goes into Keele Valley that winds up in the leachate collection system winds up on my beach if that plant does not work well, so I was no less concerned about what happens to the residents of Maple than my own residents because, it happens to be the same thing.

My question to the counsel: You have stated that the minister could use the Environmental Protection Act to promote the extension of Keele Valley. I understand you are preparing an argument to say this process was unacceptable. Could you clarify for the committee how the use of the EPA could be used to short-circuit that? What I am referring to is the creation of the argument you are using against P1 under the EPA.

The Chair: A question for the record, Mr McClelland.

Mr McClelland: This is a question and a request to the ministry for copies of opinions obtained either by the ministry or the Interim Waste Authority for authority of the power proposed through Bill 143, and copies of any opinions, letters, correspondence from the Attorney General and other legal sources with respect to the authority in terms of civil rights or any contravention of charter rights with respect to the drafting of Bill 143.

The Chair: A question for the record, Mr Cousens.

Mr Cousens: The concerns raised in the earlier presentation by the region of York that touched on the charter challenge, based on Bill 143 becoming law, bring out the importance of the question I posed that Mr Lederer gave some response to. I suggested that if there is any further information you could give on challenges to this legislation at a higher level, or what could be done on it, it could be very useful as we approach the latter stages of the debate of this bill because we still have an opportunity in line-by-line, clause-by-clause and in the House for final reading. That could also apply to the earlier presentation that touched on this as well. That would be very helpful.

The Chair: The questions that have been put on the record will be made available to you by the clerk. We would appreciate it if you would respond in writing for committee members. There is approximately five minutes left. I have left that available to you to sum up in whichever way you wish.

Mrs Jackson: What has to be recognized here is that our concerns about Bill 143 go far beyond waste management and have to do with rights. I think the issue of the rights of all citizens overshadows the partisan aspects of the debate that will take place on the floor. I also want to say that as we appear in front of you, I am not only appearing on behalf of my citizens representing their concerns because we have Keele Valley in our midst. It is a disaster at times. We have garbage blowing in all directions; we have seagulls, dust. It is a disaster and we would like to see it end. My concerns here as an environmentalist are to say to everybody in this area that there are very grave concerns with Keele Valley. What would happen if the water table does get polluted? What happens to the effluent that is pumped off the dump and taken down to the disposal plant and then goes eventually into the lake? Is that disposal plant at the lake capable of looking after all the various chemicals coming out of that landfill site?

My concern in being in front of you is to ask you please not to think of this just as a concern of the people of Maple or the people of Vaughan. This is a concern of the people of Ontario and I hope all members will keep that in mind when you debate this bill further.

The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. We appreciate your presentation.


Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Madam Chair: A point that was just raised by Mayor Jackson --

The Chair: What is your point of order?

Mr Cousens: Could I put it as a question?

The Chair: No. The time has expired. When you have your next opportunity you can put it on the record as a question. The time has expired for this presentation at this time. You can also ask them privately and ask that they include it in their presentation to the committee of other questions.


The Chair: The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, please come forward. I would ask that you begin your presentation by introducing the delegation. You have one hour for your presentation. The procedure we have been following will allow a summation, if you wish, at the end, as well as questions the members would like to place on the record that can be answered in writing.

For all those who are watching these hearings and proceedings, if you have an interest in the record, it is produced by Hansard and there is a complete record of all the witnesses' presentations. The Hansard is available as a publication of Ontario in all government bookstores. It will take a couple of weeks before they are complete and up to date.

Anyone who would like to communicate with the committee may do so in writing at any time over the course of these hearings and discussions. Any communications we receive prior to February 14 will become part of the public record. Anything we receive after February 14 will be circulated among the members of the committee and considered as part of the deliberations.

Thank you for appearing before us today. I want to welcome the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Chairman Tonks, would you introduce your delegation? Begin your presentation now, and we would ask that you leave as much time as possible for questions.

Mr Tonks: With me are Joan King, the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto works committee, Bob Ferguson, commissioner of Metropolitan Toronto works, Bill Crowther, the assistant director of Metropolitan Toronto works, and Jim Anderson, solicitor in our legal department who deals with environmental matters.

The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto welcomes this opportunity to make a presentation on Bill 143. We think the bill has important implications not only for the greater Toronto area but also for all the province. Metropolitan Toronto has been planning towards a solution of our waste management problems since 1986 through our solid waste environmental assessment plan, or SWEAP. We take this matter very seriously and have not skirted our responsibilities.

On Monday the minister claimed in her statement to this committee that upon assuming office she found waste management planning in Ontario to be in a state of disarray. We assume she was talking about the rest of Ontario, because Metro's waste plan was in order and on schedule. However, in November 1990 the minister directed Metro not to release our long list of preferred sites for Metro's residual waste and to cease all further work on the site search. Had we been able to proceed in the endeavour, we believe we would now be prepared for an environmental hearing to determine Metro's future landfill site requirements.

Metro, however, continued with the development of its master plan strategy. We have copies of our draft master plan for you, which is now undergoing public and agency review. I like to point out that the master plan strategy sets targets and describes the number and types of facilities for Metropolitan Toronto to achieve 30% waste stream reduction by 1992 and 60% by the year 2000. I would remind you that is in excess of the provincial waste stream reduction targets. I am also pleased to tell you that we in Metropolitan Toronto are on target with respect to achieving those objectives.

I would like now to ask councillor Joan King to present Metro's major concerns and comments with respect to Bill 143. Before Joan addresses you, I would like to say that I am at the police commission at this time and if I have to make a strategic withdrawal it is not because I am fearful of the questions that would be raised, but the rest of the delegation are more than capable of handling any questions.

Mrs King: You have before you our folder which contains three things: a very formal written brief, a copy of my comments and the draft solid waste environmental assessment plan.

I thought it would be best if I perhaps highlighted some of the concerns of Metro, and to do that I will make my presentation in two parts. First there will be the general concerns and the premises upon which we have developed our position. Then I will take you through the four parts of the bill and highlight the concerns.

Overall, the Metropolitan corporation appreciates the need for and the objectives of Bill 143. On the one hand, Bill 143 is attempting to provide an effective statutory framework for the provision of interim and long-term disposal capacity in the GTA as well as for the implementation of the minister's waste reduction action plan. But on the other hand, we believe this bill, in the process of attempting to achieve these objectives, ignores the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act by restricting both the examination of alternatives and public participation. We have three basic concerns:

1. Who has control and who is going to be paying? Through this bill, the province is taking control over municipal waste management planning with respect to roles, responsibilities and financing, in the absence of appropriate discussion with municipalities and the private sector.

2. Has the Environmental Assessment Act been unnecessarily compromised? We all agree that the Environmental Assessment Act needs streamlining. However, in this case we believe it has been circumvented by specific GTA legislation thus compromising the best aspects of the act: review of alternatives and public consultation.

3. Will rights be limited with the expansion of the Keele Valley lift? In particular, the rights of the public, if there is no hearing; the rights of Metro for future revenue-generating capabilities -- these are what drive our 3Rs programs -- and then, conversely, the extension of new rights by providing for injurious affection that could lead to unlimited liability. We are pleased to hear that the minister has indicated the clause relating to injurious affection will be deleted.

Those are the three overriding concerns. To look at the premises upon which we have based our position, I would like to tell you there is sufficient capacity at the Keele Valley and Brock West landfill sites to allow for a scoped, time-limited consideration of alternatives for the disposal of waste not only for the long term but for the interim as well.

At Brock West, capacity will maybe last until 1994 to 1996, and for Keele Valley we are predicting 1997 to 1999. We have to quote a range in time because we are dealing with four ever-changing factors: the reduction in waste generation due to this recession; the recent export of waste south of the border by the private sector; an accelerated settlement in the landfills which is providing additional capacity; the 3Rs programs. These figures are fluid; however, it appears there is time for a scoped hearing and appropriate public consultation.

Metro has been involved over the last two years in discussions on the future waste management mandate for Metro. These discussions have involved extensive consultation with the general public, the private sector, our area municipalities and the other GTA regional municipalities with respect to proposed revisions to our section 66 of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, defining Metro's future jurisdiction in solid waste management.


The proposed changes would define more formally the responsibilities of the municipality and the private sector. We realize that Metro Toronto cannot be responsible for waste reduction without some mandate or formal responsibility with respect to the area municipalities that are collecting waste and recyclable materials. While it is not our intent to unnecessarily control or restrict the private sector, there must be a more formal arrangement with this sector. It is very difficult to plan, for example, when in 1990 the private sector delivered to our landfills in excess of 50% of the total amount of waste. Yet one year later in 1991 it had dropped its portion from two million tonnes to one million tonnes. So we must develop some kind of cooperation.

As a result of the debate on the proposed section 66 amendments, Metro council has put forth a single authority model for discussion with all the interested parties. We envision that such an authority would be run collectively by the regions of the GTA and would combine policy, operation and revenue for all aspects of waste management. In contrast, we believe this bill is further entangling and fragmenting responsibilities.

We are concerned with the issue of cost accountability. We see a dichotomy where Metro could continue to have the responsibility for the management of waste, including disposal, and bear the burden of the cost without direct access to revenue and with no meaningful input into the policy and planning process which in Bill 143 appears to be assumed by the province. Those are the general concerns and premises.

Looking at the bill, I have to tell you that when I first read it, and I am speaking as a municipal politician, I was horrified with part IV and how it will affect municipal responsibility for waste management. I would like to rearrange the order that we look at things and talk about part IV first.

This Bill 143 has been introduced by the minister responsible for the GTA and it appears to be mostly concerned about finding landfill capacity for the GTA. However, the Minister of the Environment has tacked on in part IV significant amendments to the Environmental Protection Act which will ensure the province's ability to control waste management. Bill 143 represents an unprecedented and fundamental intrusion of provincial control over the actual waste management responsibilities of municipalities.

At Metro, we think we have been doing a good job with waste management. Since 1967 the Metro corporation has responsibly carried out its obligations. We have completed three master plans, in 1967, 1977 and 1980. In 1988 we started on the draft you have before you. We put in place 3Rs programs that are scheduled to achieve the minister's targets of 25% by 1992. These programs are the largest of their kind in North America and are on the leading edge in solid waste management.

You have a copy today of our solid waste environmental assessment plan document which, as I say, is out for public consultation and will be finalized shortly. It covers a 40-year period up to the year 2030. It identifies policies, programs and facilities to manage solid non-hazardous waste generated by the residential, municipal, institutional, commercial and industrial sectors within Metro. We are confident that if Metro is allowed to implement the plan as proposed, we will be successful in reaching the plan's targets of 30% by 1992 and 60% by the year 2000.

Our achievements to date have been possible only -- and let me emphasize this -- only because of the disposal revenues we collect at the tipping phase. They pay for these expensive 3Rs programs. Bill 143 leaves us very anxious about how we are going to pay for the waste management facilities and programs necessary to achieve future targets.

Given this background, Metro has two main areas of concern in part IV: section 33 of the bill which amends section 136 of the EPA and section 26 which amends section 29 of the EPA. Under these proposed changes, the province will be able to regulate extensively in program planning and implementation and not just as it has in the past in facility standards and in granting approvals.

The Metropolitan corporation is fundamentally concerned over the enactment of legislation that may result in orders to municipalities to implement extremely expensive programs and facilities without any accompanying long-term assurance of revenue. For example -- and I cannot stress enough how much we are talking about here -- the capital costs for the facilities needed to achieve these diversion targets that we have established in our master plan are $500 million. If we were just to take the municipal waste and separate it out, not the private sector, it is about $225 million in capital costs.

How about operating it? A preliminary estimate of the costs for construction, amortizing and operating the facilities for collecting, recycling, composting and disposing of municipal waste -- municipal waste only -- is $75 million to $100 million a year.

To give you something to compare it with, we are in the process of setting our budgets. To pay the cheques for people on welfare in Metropolitan Toronto this year we are budgeting net $104 million. So I can see a time when we could be spending more net dollars on processing our waste than looking after our social network.

Of particular concern, then, is that section 33 has subsection 136(4) which allows the government to govern "the manner in which municipalities carry out the financial management of their waste management activities." Will Metro have the ability to generate future revenues? May I tell you that this continued uncertainty at Metro over our ability to control costs and revenues for waste management will result in a slowdown on the 3Rs initiatives and achievements.

To summarize, the concerns regarding part IV are basically about control and cost. Will we have a system where one level of government plans and decides what will be done and the other level of government simply follows instructions? Our democratic system has always been based on accountability, but the more we allow different levels of government to interfere in another's jurisdiction, the more we will reap discord, disarray and disillusion. At a time when we have all agreed -- the province and all municipalities -- that we need to disentangle, this bill creates further entanglement. The Metropolitan corporation is pleased, however, to see the intended transfer of powers to the director have been withdrawn by the minister.

I urge the government to defer part IV. It would be much more appropriate for these specific amendments to the EPA to come forward in conjunction with the proposed provincial paper on waste management responsibilities and we can work it out and plan it together.

Metro council has dealt with this brief and has approved nine recommendations. I have them interspersed, so I will just refer to them as we come to them.


The first recommendation -- this comes from Metro council -- is that the passage of part IV of Bill 143, and in particular subsection 23(2) and sections 26 and 33, be deferred, to be considered with the forthcoming initiatives paper of the province on municipal waste management responsibilities.

As well, perhaps a definitional one, the second recommendation is that the word "arrangements" be deleted from the definition of "waste management system" contained in section 24 of the bill.

Now I would like to go back and start with part I. As you know, this is the part of the bill concerning the Interim Waste Authority. The legislation is unclear as to the intended mandate of the Interim Waste Authority. If by the establishment of landfill sites the intent includes their operations, then this legislation should say so. The uncertainty is compounded by the provisions in part IV which give the minister the power to establish and operate waste disposal sites.

We have a lot of jobs on the line here. We employ a lot of people who are concerned about the security of their jobs.

Therefore, we recommend -- this is the third recommendation of council -- that Bill 143 be amended to provide the Interim Waste Authority with the explicit statutory mandate only to search for and select the relevant waste disposal sites, and that the legislation clarify that the IWA is the only proponent in connection with the environmental assessment to be undertaken.

Looking at part II of Bill 143, this restricts the environmental assessments to be undertaken by the IWA in two ways: first, by limiting the examination of a full range of alternatives to the establishment of a single landfill site in each of the defined service areas; second, by requiring the IWA to use estimates established by the minister.

Going back to the first way, dealing with limitations, limiting examination of alternatives is a fundamental departure from the traditional Environmental Assessment Act process. At Metro, we think it more appropriate to streamline the process while preserving the examination of alternatives. Given the landfill capacity now remaining at Keele Valley and Brock, time is available to look at alternatives.

Therefore, it is the position of the Metropolitan corporation that the Adams mine waste management system proposal warrants a comparison to any IWA sites in the GTA before the option, which we obtained after consultation with the minister, expires in 1995.

I think Metro has shown initiative, looking for sound environmental facilities that will not have a dramatic social impact, and I think we should be allowed to study them.

It is interesting to note that in the referendum held in Kirkland Lake, 69% of the voters said yes to the question, "Are you in favour of a full environmental assessment for the Adams mine landfill and recycling project?"

As well, an environmental assessment should examine the relationship of landfill to energy-from-waste incineration. To date, our document, in its technical evaluation of incineration, has resulted in the following conclusions: (1) incineration systems can meet the objectives of solid waste management in an environmentally acceptable manner; (2) a predominance of evidence suggests that properly designed incinerators do not pose human health hazards; (3) incineration and material recovery can be complementary components of a waste management plan where incineration is restricted to the residual and other non-recyclable, combustible wastes; (4) incinerator ash may be managed in an environmentally safe and acceptable manner through ashfill containment technology, environmental monitoring and contingency planning. We think it should be part of the process.

Regarding the issue of estimates, the Metropolitan corporation is opposed to the imposition of unilateral ministerial waste reduction estimates that may have significant consequence. We see a big difference between targets and estimates. Full consultation should be provided to ensure that the estimates are rational, defensible, affordable and achievable within the context of the current Environmental Assessment Act. As well, there should be public consultation on the policies the minister may establish under section 15.

Now I will go to the specific recommendations from Metro council:

Fourth, that the bill mandate that the IWA examine, in the context of the disposal facilities for the GTA as a whole, the option of incineration within Metropolitan Toronto, including the continuation of the Metropolitan corporation's SWEAP site search for energy-from-waste facilities;

Fifth, that the bill provide that the Adams mine site in the vicinity of Kirkland Lake, for which the Metropolitan corporation has an option, be deemed a site within the primary service area for Metro and York in order to be evaluated with other sites identified by the IWA;

Sixth, that the bill not contain any provision for the establishment of estimates by the minister to bind the IWA's environmental assessment but that such estimates be governed in the normal fashion through the environmental assessment process, including public consultation;

Seventh, that the bill provide for a process of public consultation in respect of the policies to be established by the minister under section 15;

Eighth, that the Minister of the Environment expedite revisions to the environmental assessment process through EAPIP, the environmental assessment program improvement project.

With respect to part III, concerning the proposed Keele Valley expansion, the Metro corporation believes sufficient time exists for an appropriate public hearing to take place. However, we believe any such hearing must be scoped as to the technical merits and time frame.

Ninth, we recommend that the bill be amended to provide for a part V public hearing prior to the issuance of a certificate of approval if the time frame for such a hearing permits, but that the legislation also provide (a) that the approval body need not address in the public interest anything other than the technical merits of the Keele Valley disposal site and (b) time lines for completion of the hearing.

In regard to the minister's removal of clauses concerning injurious affection from the bill, we concur with her proposed action, as it would have placed a potential unlimited liability on the corporation.

In summary, I think the key to a successful resolution of the greater Toronto area waste management problems is the 3Cs: cooperation, coordination and collaboration. However, what part IV of this bill does is put the cart before the horse. We need stakeholder dialogue and public participation now on the roles and responsibilities of all players in the waste management field. Before legislation is enacted, we need to see the complete picture. Failure to undertake this form of cooperative dialogue only leads to a reluctance to make commitments on the part of the public and the private sector.

The model that Metro believes needs to be discussed is a single-authority model under the jurisdiction of the greater Toronto area regions. This model would allow for one level of government, the regional level, to have the ability to plan, to operate and to pay for a comprehensive waste management system. Costing and control cannot be separated. The level of government that plans the waste reduction programs must be the level that pays for them.

We are confident that the regions within the GTA can manage waste safely and efficiently with the support of the private sector. However, if the province persists with the apparent intentions set out in Bill 143, then we think the province should take over all responsibility for waste management, including a single master plan for Ontario, selection of future technology for waste reduction and the subsequent risks and costs.

Madam Chair, I have had an opportunity to watch some of the proceedings on television and I know we are now at the time for questions. I thought perhaps it would be of particular interest to members of the committee to have an opportunity to ask questions of somebody who is actually in the operational business, so we have asked the commissioner, Mr Bob Ferguson, to be here for specific questions relating to how it can be done. I think you may find he has a lot of information to impart. As well, Jim Anderson, our solicitor, has studied the legal concerns about waste management with us for many years. We would like you to feel free to address questions to Mr Ferguson, Mr Anderson or Mr Tonks.


Mr Wiseman: I appreciate your coming and I listened very carefully to what you had to say. I have a number of questions. I have 16 requests. They do not all have to be answered now, but I would like the information come to us before we consider the clause-by-clause.

First, I would like maps and contour lines of Keele Valley and Brock West, plus an explanation of each one. I would like copies of the certificates of approval for Keele Valley and Brock West; an analysis of the daily tippage at Keele Valley and Brock West, plus an analysis of numbers on a monthly basis back at least six years so we can extrapolate; a content analysis of the dumps so that we know what is going in on a daily basis; a description and an analysis of the content cover of both Brock West and Keele Valley.

I would like an indication of the source of all the waste going into both Brock West and Keele Valley. where does it come from and so on? I would like an analysis of all odour control and successful odour control abatement that has been taken; a description of the leachate control systems of Keele Valley and Brock West and a chemical analysis of the gas being burned at the Brock West eastern power EFW. I would like all charts and measurements taken of the burning of the plume of the eastern power EFW so that we know what temperatures it is at the various stages as it comes out of the stack.

Now we are going to get into the financial end of this. How much money does Metropolitan Toronto make on landfilling waste tippage fees and how much of this money is returned to the local community, so that we can have an idea of the true cost of tipping? I would also like to know what long-term plans have been created for the closure of the landfill sites and the estimated cost of continuous care of the landfill sites in perpetuity. What I would also like to know is how much you charge the various sectors of the Metropolitan Toronto municipality, such as school boards, separate and private, and how much you charge your own administration's tipping fees, going into both Brock West and Keele Valley. Last, what is the daily operating cost for both Keele Valley and Brock West?

The Chair: You can take those questions as notice and reply in writing to the committee at a time that is convenient to you. The request has been that the reply be in before we deal with clause-by-clause. The committee would appreciate that, if it is possible.

Mr Tonks: Might I just make a comment? I would think a lot of that information is available through the ministry as part of the approval processes that were given with respect to the eastern power project, for example, and so on.

The Chair: To save you the effort of pulling all that together again, perhaps it is appropriate that we ask the ministry to let us know what it has available, what it can make available for the committee, and anything that it does not have, you can fill in.

Mr Tonks: We will fill in whatever else is required.

The Chair: Is that reasonable?

Mr Tonks: Yes, that is fine.

Mr McClelland: When and how did you find out about Bill 143, I ask any representative of Metro? I would be pleased to hear about that. Were you given any prior consultation or discussion on the drafting?

Mrs King: No. As a matter of fact, I think it was right during the middle of an election campaign when I first heard about it. AMO contacted me trying to get a meeting of municipal politicians, but it could not get them together because they were all out trying to get re-elected.

Mr McClelland: I will leave people to draw their own conclusions about that. Did you ever get a response from the minister to your letter -- I am not sure of the precise date -- of October 1991? Metro sent a letter to the minister asking her to ban the shipping of Metro's waste to the United States. Any response to date that you are aware of?

Mrs King: I do not think there has been an official response.

Mr Tonks: If I can add a supplementary to that, I was surprised to hear that the region of Halton had been given a supplementary adjustment to make up for tipping differentials that it would be charged to have to deal with it locally in order to take it across the border. I found that rather interesting and I would like to hear an explanation of that one of these days.

Mr McClelland: I would be interested in hearing an explanation too and I suppose it segues nicely into my next question. Do you see any consistency or any logic or any kind of rationale whatsoever in terms of not even responding to that letter and laying it out for discussion in terms of garbage being shipped to the United States, and at the same time saying we are just going to preclude consideration of transport in the development of other projects? I mean, "It is okay to go ahead and do that and we are not even going to discuss what is happening and not respond to your question." Where does that fit in terms of consistency and any kind of logic?

Mrs King: Do you want me to go ahead? I was finished.

Mr McClelland: You got elected.

Mrs King: That is right. I recognize that it is difficult to put the same controls on the private sector as it seems rather easy to put on the municipalities and I think that is part of the issue. We have a major problem. I have been listening to your hearings and everybody is talking about Metro, "You look after your waste in your own backyard." I have to tell you that we do not have space.

But then I get angry on the other side because I look at what is going the other way. I looked in the paper last night and saw the cost for education in Ontario. I know that none of that is coming to Metropolitan Toronto and I know who is paying most of it. I know that downtown in south Riverdale they are putting up with lead from recycling batteries from the whole province. You know, "Ship it all into Metro and let them do it, but don't let Metro think that maybe removing the excess residual waste from where people live makes any sense."

I am not talking about stopping all the good things, but when we look at it and we plan, there is a limit to how much we can do with all the reduction activities. There will be residual waste. Does it make sense to keep it right where all the people live, breathe and drink the water, or does it make sense to look where it will not have a social impact, where it will be environmentally safe?

Mr McClelland: You have summed up, in part, one of the frustrations I have had as I have looked at this bill both prior to coming to committee and in the committee itself. The inconsistencies in terms of logic are just profound. It seems to me that what we do is pick and choose the application of doctrine or philosophy or ideology to make it fit. If the facts do not fit, then we will throw them out; if the ideology fits for what we want, we will make that predominant. You have summed it up very well.

It defies logic, quite frankly, in terms of some of the inconsistencies in the bill and the application of different principles, depending on where you live, depending on what day of the week it is and dependent, I guess, on whether it is sunny or not or if the minister, on any particular day, feels good or does not feel good. That is about the extent of the logic and consistency in terms of some of the principles enunciated in this bill. It is just pick and choose and make that fit wherever you want.

You said you have some concerns with respect to the private sector, and you indicated on page 2 of your brief that there was little or no consultation with you; in fact, you said there was none: "absence of appropriate discussion with the municipalities and the private sector." Then on page 8 you begin to touch on the cost implications. You said you feel there is a role to be played, but it has to be done in balance and consultation.

How do you feel about the prospect of this bill driving the private sector out of the waste management industry altogether? We have some very clear messages from this government in terms of, "Profit's a bad word; we don't want it." Witness the day care situation: "We'll put $75 million into it. It won't create one more space, but there's a problem here with profit. We don't like that word." What is that going to do to Metro in terms of costs to you as a council and the impact it will have on the property taxpayer in Metro if the type of mentality embodied in Bill 143 prevails and effectively says to the private sector, "Listen, take your chances"? We all know, living in the real world, that the private sector does not take its chances. They make an analysis on the facts available to them and they are operating in a total vacuum right now. What is the impact going to be if you have to pick up the whole tab?


Mr Tonks: I think we can be kind of cynical with respect to the political machinations that often drive agendas: social agendas, environmental agendas, economic agendas. I think you have to try at some point to sever that out and say -- you use the term "logic." I used that term once and I always regretted doing it. I think that if you are talking about the role of the private sector, you have to admit that there has been a substantive role that has been played in the past.

If you look at the magnitude of the liability -- Joan has attempted to give you the scale -- when you fold in the amortization costs of building the facilities just for your reduction programs, you are talking a $75-million resource allocation out of what I would submit are presently strapped financial resources. It is on the magnitude of a bill similar to the welfare bill right now. In Metropolitan Toronto the differential is $100 million from last year. If you project ahead at the rate of disposal we have been talking about, for the municipal sector alone now, you are talking about a liability that has to be funded. If you were trying to figure out actuarially how you would cover an unfunded service sector of this magnitude, I am not sure the province can manage it, much less Metropolitan Toronto, much less all the other regions and municipalities that are going to be caught in similar situations. So that is the magnitude.

Our tipping that has been covering our systems costs, which we have worked out in partnership with York and Durham, has served us well in the past. I know they have a different idea of the future, and that is understandable. I say that with the regional chairman here because he is looking at the liability that is coming down the tube. I understand that. When we worked to establish the waste management authority, the interim steering committee, we were attempting to construct a financial model against the capabilities of the private sector to capitalize and, yes, to make profit, married, as a check and a balance, with the public sector. That authority was going to select a number of alternatives that would come forward as a result of proposal calls. But that was a partnership, in which we were agreeing to finance the technologies, develop the partnerships as to who and on what basis and where would we reinvest that so-called profit. It was a complete picture.

Following that model, I can sit in this room and find no contradiction whatsoever with what we accomplished. But I would suggest to you that to extrapolate the contradictions that have been put forward here, our answer is that if you sever out the responsibilities -- we sometimes compartmentalize and forget about all the work we have done in other areas where the philosophies and the economics of the issues and so on are similar, for example, disentanglement in the social services area, and we completely leave that model out and start trying to reinvent the wheel with respect to a liability of this nature. Do you wonder why the public does not understand what is going on? We sit around and nod our heads like, "What are we doing?"

My answer to the question, finally, is a matter of scale. Develop the fiscal model. We have talked to the ministry about it. This legislation is completely premature in the sense that the process is not complete in terms of the kinds of partnerships you need to fund that kind of liability and select the technologies and who is going to buy in and who is going to buy out.

Mrs King: I --

The Chair: Mr Carr, you have the floor.

Mr Carr: Sorry; you can maybe sneak that in during my questioning.

I think you are right. I am pleased to see that you talked about accountability and the lines of authority. Certainly if you look at it and if we approach this as one of the -- in management they tell you the first thing is that you have to have clear lines of authority and responsibility. It is the first rule of management. When you look at the way we are governed, it is no wonder people shake their heads.

Just before I get into a couple of questions, I want to confirm something with the chairman. I know it was asked by one of the other members. Before this bill was brought in, you are saying as chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, and this bill will affect you greatly in all areas, that there was no prior consultation or knowledge on the bill?

Mr Tonks: Not on the specifics of this bill, no.

Mr Carr: So what you got was just that they were coming in with something, but they did not get into the details. I just wanted to clarify that.

We also heard this morning from the people from Notre Development, who talked a little bit about the programs. They said, as you did, I think, on page 5, that you have done a good job. I know there has been a lot of criticism of Metro from a lot of areas saying you have not done your job. I think what has happened is that you have, and then the rules of the game change and you have to scramble around. You have a very comprehensive proposal here that I suspect would be more comprehensive than even the provincial one, and where this leaves us with this legislation will be interesting to see.

With the proposal to Kirkland Lake I just want to find out, and either the chair or the councillor could inform me, what the feeling of council is with regard to the proposal in terms of Kirkland Lake and what the feedback is from, obviously, those people who are elected by the people of Metro Toronto. What are they saying about the Kirkland Lake proposal?

Mrs King: You are asking about members of council?

Mr Carr: Yes.

Mrs King: I think members of council are very supportive. We went through the exercise a couple of years ago in the SWISC process of having to identify some possible sites, both for interim and long-term, and this is certainly one we have been looking at, although, again, that is just at a very preliminary stage. But as we have stated in here, members of council think it is something that should be part of this process. We would like to see it evaluated along with other possible sites the IWA would find, I agree with the region of York's presentation this afternoon; it will have to be the region of York.

Mr Tonks: Councillor Christie has indicated to me, and I had forgotten, but there were several votes, reaffirming, confirming.

Mrs King: That is right.

Mr Tonks: Remember that we had to get authority to enter the negotiations in the first place. We had to get authority to enter into the options. We had to renew the options.

Mrs King: We had to pay for the options.

Mr Tonks: We had to pay for the options. This thing went to council probably at least a dozen times, and only two councillors opposed it out of 34.

Mrs Mathyssen: I have a question for now and I would like to put one on the record later. I noted that in your recommendations, incineration is still part of your proposal. In going through your draft master plan for disposal, I see again that incineration is there. You talk about incineration in terms of energy recovery. We heard from Dr Paul Connett, a chemist and an incinerator specialist, and he is very sceptical about incinerators. I would like you to comment on I guess what he has to say in connection with your plan in your master plan strategy here.

You talk about the incinerator ash. We have heard that the amount of ash is voluminous and that in the case of Lambton, in order to accommodate that ash, they would have filled up all their landfill sites. You do not talk about that voluminous ash in this strategy.


You also talk about the kinds of things that would be incinerated, such as paper products unsuitable for reuse, recycling or composting, and organic wastes. I live in Middlesex and the Victoria Hospital incinerator is in the middle of the city of London. I have toured that facility. During that tour they indicated that in order to burn that organic material -- it is very wet; it is very soggy -- you have to generate a lot of BTUs, and the things that generate that kind of heat are the very things we should be recycling. I also note that you say you could incinerate textile, leather or other rubber waste. From Dr Connett's presentation this morning, and I believe my memory serves me correctly, these are precisely the things that cause the worst kinds of dioxins to go up the stack.

He also said, "Beware of those who would say, `We can use these incinerators to generate energy and sell it off to corporations like Ontario Hydro,'" and lo and behold, on the very next page you talk about selling this energy to Ontario Hydro and how you can use it. Dr Connett talked about a facility in the United States that invested $150 million to update its stack to put further controls on it. They only generated $10 million in sales from the electricity and that meant effectively that they had to run that operation for 15 years just to pay for the stack, much less the cost of building and operating the facility.

In light of that, in light of what the environmentalists are saying -- I note that this is just a draft -- do you still support incineration as a possibility for your waste management?

Mr Tonks: First, I appreciate the background information you have. I have not heard that particular doctor's analysis of it, but I am sure there are as many analyses as there are doctors in that area. I think that is the essence of what environmental assessment hearings are all about. You put all the alternatives forward and they have to be defended in technical terms and assessed against economic and social prerequisites. That is the essence of a hearing.

Our position has been that we have placed energy from waste in our plans as an alternative to be tested through the environmental assessment process. I think the end result will determine whether the best available technology satisfies the touch test you have placed through the professor's perspective.

The second thing is that when you look across Canada and go to Vancouver and see their incinerator and the technology they are using, and then you go to Paris and they are just opening a new incinerator and you then try to answer people's questions, "Why are we not even looking at that?" usually you fall back on arguments other than chemistry and technology. You say, "But most of the time we don't want to encourage people to use a lot of things we have to incinerate or that kind of thing; we want to reduce."

That is great, but what we have indicated, and the commissioner can establish this in greater detail, is that there still will be, as our master plan points out, a large part of the waste stream we will have to do something with. That is where some form other than landfilling approaches and reduction strategies will have to be factored in. But my main point is that it has to be as a result of an environmental assessment process that looks at all the kinds of issues you have raised.

Mr Cousens: Mr O'Connor, the parliamentary assistant to the minister for the greater Toronto area, indicated that the IWA is looking at possible sites. Though they have not released the list of those sites, as they said they would, he indicated earlier today that they are looking at sites in Metro. Have you any idea what sites those would be and is that part of your planning? At this point York region is not all that thrilled. We are not a happy host to your garbage.

Mr Tonks: You are not a happy camper.

Mr Cousens: Not a happy camper.

Mr Tonks: I understand.

Mr Cousens: What about some of the other potential sites you are looking at within your own area, rather than coming north of Steeles?

Mr Ferguson: We commenced looking within our own area some four years ago and we identified, I believe, five prospective sites within Metropolitan Toronto. Those sites were considered when we prepared our long list of sites, but we were told to put away the long list, so it is in the vault or in the files. There were sites identified by us in Metropolitan Toronto and we would be happy to have those compared with any other sites.

Mr Cousens: Maybe I could invite you to share them with the committee and we could make them public so that Metro Toronto can start getting ready for the effects of Bill 143. I would appreciate it if that could be released to us. It will certainly help us, because there is a mystery coming from the ministry and from the Interim Waste Authority, and maybe we can then work together to see that you have your own sites.

Mr Ferguson: The ministry has those sites.

Mr Cousens: Would you make those available to us?

Mr Ferguson: We will make another copy available.

Mr Cousens: Thank you. The ministry will not give them to us; that is part of the problem. No, maybe we have not asked that specific question, so we are not getting them.

The problem I have is that we are working in a vacuum. The people of Metro are soon going to have a new bill and right now they are living very comfortably thinking it does not affect them. The fact of the matter is the ministry is now looking at Metro for waste sites and I am most interested in knowing where they might be and how we can help solve your problem. I know you would be concerned.

Mr Tonks: The solicitor has some problems with that.

Mr Anderson: I think all we can undertake is to look at the issue of release of those sites and to get back to you, but I am not prepared to indicate that we can simply holus-bolus release the names of those sites. There may be some property rights issues involved with respect to the release of that information.

Mr Cousens: The only concern I have is that this bill is going to remove most of the rights of people anyway once those become available. There will not be any rights left for anybody else, and now we are seeing the possibility that Metro might be withholding the names. I find this really a surprise. It is a democracy.

Mr Ferguson: I think the simple answer is that everybody knows where these sites are. They are primarily in the Rouge Valley and the list is available from a number of different sources.

Mr Cousens: By the way, I have to say, Mr Ferguson, you are one of the best commissioners they could possibly have and I like the work you do.

Mr Tonks: Put your name forward for a judgeship.

Mr Cousens: Where I sit with our party, I am not going anywhere.

If we can have those sites, it would be a most interesting discussion point and I am sure it would be very worth while.

The Chair: I point out to the deputants that the committee is making requests when we put questions on the record and you can answer them however you wish given the advice of your solicitors.

Mr Cousens: You ask questions. You do not get answers.

Ms Haeck: A point of clarification, Madam Chair: I believe Mr Cousens, through the Metro solicitor, has really raised a point that I was worried about earlier even when Mr McClelland made his request of ministry staff about the longer list of proposed sites. In releasing some of these kinds of details, would there not be some property rights, some legal concerns around privacy?

The Chair: That is not a point of clarification; that is a point of view. We have some questions for the record that I would like to allow to be put and then a very quick summation of just a couple of minutes.

Mr Martin: My question revolves around the area of governance and the provincial government's mandate within that. Certainly the issue of waste management is not one that just concerns a local area any more. This discussion has pointed that out.

One of the first people to come into my office when I first got elected was somebody who talked about an emergency here re the waste management issue and it seems today we have a question of whether there is an emergency here or there is not an emergency. My question is, in light of all that and the fact that when we say Interim Waste Authority, that simply means interim, and if there is to be a longer discussion about the governance of the waste management issue under the guidelines of the 3Rs etc, are you, as a council, willing to enter into those discussions and what are your thoughts on that whole issue of governance, given that this legislation may in fact pass?


Ms Haeck: Mrs King raised the issue of Metro not having any space available to deal with its waste. I was wondering if they had given any consideration to smaller landfill sites within Metro that might be designated to a type-specific waste, something that was raised by another deputant, ie, construction materials would only be allowed on such a site. I wonder if they have given it any consideration at all.

The Chair: Are you asking for a list?

Ms Haeck: Yes I am, actually, or at least some information if they have considered it.

Mr McClelland: What I would like to know is if the two members of council who voted against the proposal happened to be members of any caucus at Metro council.

Mr Cousens: They are New Democrats, are they not?

The Chair: Question, Mr McClelland. This is not helpful.

Mr McClelland: My real question is to the Ministry of the Environment. We have been talking about Keele Valley in part as owned and operated by Metro. I would like an analysis from the ministry or a summary of the analysis in terms of the operation of the incinerator located adjacent to Keele Valley, any reference in terms of compliance with the certificate of approval, any orders of the minister given recently to override a certificate of approval, detail on compliance, detail on the issue of emergency orders of the ministry with respect to the operation of any incineration in and around Metro, particularly Keele Valley.

Mr Cousens: I have a feeling Metro is going to become very wealthy through Bill 143. Could you give me a cost-benefit analysis of the bill and whether or not it shows you are going to be making money or losing money? I want it to be proven by the numbers. That might come through in the questions Mr Wiseman asked, but just on the bill itself, what effect will it have on your budgeting costs?

The Chair: There are just a couple of minutes remaining. You can use that time to sum up. We would appreciate it if you could respond to the questions that have been put on the record. Another question for the record?

Mrs Mathyssen: Actually, Madam Chair, I have one.

In Mrs King's presentation, she stated that given the remaining capacity at Metro's two operating landfills there is time for hearings to take place on expansion at Keele. However, Metro's estimates on the remaining capacity at both Keele and Brock West over the past year have fluctuated greatly. Do you feel confident about the figures you are presenting? Are they accurate? If you feel confident about that, why do you have that confidence, given the kinds of fluctuations we have seen in figures in the past?

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Mathyssen. As I said, you can use the next couple of minutes to complete your presentation.

Mrs King: First, we really appreciate the opportunity to come and express some of our concerns. Actually, in answer to Mr Cousens, one of our big worries is it is going to bankrupt us. We do not see making any money in the future, yet we see the tremendous costs that will be associated with what we need, which is a thorough 3Rs program. There is no question there is the commitment of the public and the politicians for very extensive waste reduction activities, but there also has to be the recognition they are going to be very costly.

I guess whoever happens to own the land where the landfill site is might have an advantage, although it should be interesting to note that the two landfill sites that we are now talking about, which are Metro's landfill sites, do not happen to be within Metro. We are going back quite some time, and I guess when one looks historically at where people disposed of their waste, they always moved it outside the area where the people were. That is historically a fact. That is something we should keep in mind when we talk about how we deal with that part of the waste stream that you cannot handle through the 3Rs.

The conserver society is here and we are part of it and we recognize that, but there is also a recognition that there is always going to be a certain amount of waste. When we are talking about the GTA, we are looking at figures of maybe three or four million people in the next 25 years. That is a lot.

Mr Tonks: If I just have one last word, I do not want to leave this on a downer, because I appreciate this is not a scene this government came into where everything actually was all in the slot. It was very dynamic. We were working in a particular direction, and I want it to be clear that the reason we really were asking for relief from some of the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act process was that, for example, our hearings were getting legal. We were getting into morasses of charter arguments and governance issues. For example, where we had a licence at Keele Valley to continue to dump within the permit we had, when we needed more clay, we were in the courts for two and a half years at a cost of several millions of dollars. We were asking for some relief with respect to the complexities of how to process and work towards a resolution of the GTA and Metro, part of the GTA, and the entanglement we had got into.

What we are trying to say here is that at a time when, for example, the province is getting out of the operation of sewer treatment plants, you are getting into an area of operating waste management and making waste management decisions. We are afraid that within the context of the presentation we are making, it is not completely thought through. The governance issues have to be thought through, otherwise you cannot balance the cost equation against the decision-making equation. In management terms that was pointed out as a very poor way to go.

My final statement is that I think that with more consultation, bringing together the best advisers we have, with considerable experience, we can resolve the issues. I think the bill has too many contradictions in it to be helpful in its present form. I hope that when it comes back from your committee, as a result of the consultation a much more concrete set of recommendations will evolve.

The Chair: We very much appreciate your coming before the committee today. A number of questions have been placed and I know that an hour, while it seems like a long time, is short once you get into it. If there is additional information you think would be helpful to the committee through our deliberations, please feel free to communicate with us in writing. As I have said before, anything we receive before February 14 will become part of the public record. After February 14 it will be considered by committee members and distributed to them but it will not be part of the public record.

For anyone who is watching the proceedings, Publications Ontario, which is at 880 Bay Street, will have a full record of the Hansards taking place at this committee and anyone who wants copies of Hansard can get them by contacting Publications Ontario.

I want to thank all the members of committee and remind them that we will be meeting again Monday at 2 pm. Please take with you everything you are concerned about, because we are not sure how the room is going to be used over the weekend.

I would like to thank everyone for participating today and say how much, as Chair, I have appreciated the cooperation I have received not only from those making presentations but from committee members as well.

The committee adjourned at 1708.